Jump to content


Allow me to Illustrate the Star Lane Debate


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

Francois424 #21 Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:20 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 145
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

Completely off topic about Moo....

 

But MAN... that is one insanely good looking risk board with SICK game rules.

Before I read the part where you did that with your dad, I was about to ask where I can buy it from.

Damn I want one like that.... arrrrgh !


 

Oh and well explained about the rules.  Let's hope we get a no-lanes mode sometime in the future.


Edited by Francois424, 01 April 2016 - 04:21 AM.


Stelar_7 #22 Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:41 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 341
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

Interesting post.

 

I think you missed one point about your custom game though. Your regional borders function as star lanes on land, your squares have a similar but lesser effect at sea, but you have very few boats. The number of boats directly limits the force capable of exploiting the free movement. In a game with no lanes, you would be able to attack anywhere, with or without a border. An army in the Central US, could strike at Chad if they so chose. Your game honors borders and that is pro star lanes.

 

What you really have a great case for though is a limited means of breaking star lane travel, for some, but not all territories. Some kind of jump gate ship, or an ability to pass a blockade for a small force. You also show that the force able to move in this way should be less than could be moved traditionally.

 

I agree with you, there should be a tech that allows a limited force to bypass a defended node. I like the idea of a stealthy ship which can create a temporary star lane, from another prepared position or ship.

 



RoddyVR #23 Posted 01 April 2016 - 09:56 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 94
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

View PostStelar_7, on 01 April 2016 - 04:41 AM, said:

Interesting post.

 

I think you missed one point about your custom game though. Your regional borders function as star lanes on land, your squares have a similar but lesser effect at sea, but you have very few boats. The number of boats directly limits the force capable of exploiting the free movement. In a game with no lanes, you would be able to attack anywhere, with or without a border. An army in the Central US, could strike at Chad if they so chose. Your game honors borders and that is pro star lanes.

 

What you really have a great case for though is a limited means of breaking star lane travel, for some, but not all territories. Some kind of jump gate ship, or an ability to pass a blockade for a small force. You also show that the force able to move in this way should be less than could be moved traditionally.

 

I agree with you, there should be a tech that allows a limited force to bypass a defended node. I like the idea of a stealthy ship which can create a temporary star lane, from another prepared position or ship.

 

 

Agree 100%.  Read the original post (which i must admit is very convincing) and something was bothering me in the logic, but couldnt figure out what, you nailed it. 

 

Block Quote

When they released early access 2 with the harder difficulties, my first game played was on very hard on the biggest map, I found a bottleneck that blocked off a significant portion and landed there. Then I found another and did the same. With 3 or 4 colonies I had effectively walled off 1/4 of the galaxy, which I filled up at my leisure and won the game with ease. Frankly, it was boring - but as long as star lanes are there, why would I ever do anything different?

 

I did the exact same thing (won with ease at hardest difficulty), but without using/abusing choke points at all.  Its just not neccessary,  at the current state of the game AI's colony management, a human player can expand quick and over power all the annoyed AIs with a huge fleet, or make few but huge colonies (terraform large and/or rich planets into uber/terran) and crush teh dumb AIs with diplomacy (buy votes or just out tech them into oblivion)

There's really no need right now to USE the advantage you CAN get by building on choke points.


Edited by RoddyVR, 01 April 2016 - 09:57 AM.


forum_account #24 Posted 01 April 2016 - 12:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16
  • Member since:
    03-06-2016

View PostStelar_7, on 01 April 2016 - 04:41 AM, said:

Interesting post.

 

I think you missed one point about your custom game though. Your regional borders function as star lanes on land, your squares have a similar but lesser effect at sea, but you have very few boats. The number of boats directly limits the force capable of exploiting the free movement. In a game with no lanes, you would be able to attack anywhere, with or without a border. An army in the Central US, could strike at Chad if they so chose. Your game honors borders and that is pro star lanes.

 

What you really have a great case for though is a limited means of breaking star lane travel, for some, but not all territories. Some kind of jump gate ship, or an ability to pass a blockade for a small force. You also show that the force able to move in this way should be less than could be moved traditionally.

 

I agree with you, there should be a tech that allows a limited force to bypass a defended node. I like the idea of a stealthy ship which can create a temporary star lane, from another prepared position or ship.

 

 

This thread is great and perfectly outlines the debate of free movement vs. starlanes with a holistic approach.  However this is the single best post I have seen on the topic and captures my feelings exactly.  

I also echo that the hardest setting is not particularly difficult and the need for dominating the choke points has not surfaced yet.  The AI/mechanics need an overhaul for this game to stay interesting for very long.  

 

Redshirt4Life #25 Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015

View PostLucian667, on 31 March 2016 - 11:54 PM, said:

 

Absolute obvious, transparent nonsense. MOO 1, MOO 2, Distant Worlds, SOTS (6 out of 7 races), BOTF. None of these have starlanes and are widely hailed as some of the best selling, most popular 4x space games ever made. There IS no problem that starlanes are needed to solve, certainly not that of AI. There has never been a starlane-based game with even moderately good AI and MOO 4 is rapidly shaping up to be no exception.

 

Also I share your dislike of GalCiv, but the inconvenient fact remains that it is the ONLY 4x game ever praised by professional reviewers for its exceptional AI (GalCiv II Dread Lords) in the 4x space genre. Look it up if you dont believe me....

https://en.wikipedia...II:_Dread_Lords

You wont find similar praise for ANY starlane based game. Quite the opposite.

 

MOO 1 and MOO 2 have starlanes. Depends on how picky you want to be here. In neither can you actually move ships into open space, only between stars. You can speficy exactly what you are talking about when you mean remove starlanes in a response if you wish. I am against giving us the ability to move ships freely in space, unless its done similiar to stars! Stars! actually had a pretty good system for it.

Galciv rightfully won rewards for its AI which emphasizes the problem with open maps and the AI. Even the best AI system sucked at it.

mikeva1 #26 Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

Space Empires 5 uses star lanes for travel. If it had a better combat system, I would play it.... a lot. That game comes closest to an acceptable star lane based game that I have tried. If it had a  combat system more like MOO 2 then it would be a pretty good game to have.

 

MOO-CTS  is NOT good enough to break into my top ten (or 20 for that matter) group of games that I always want on my computer.

 

FYI If I remember right the original AI of SE5 sucked. The last update (1.79?) made an acceptable AI according to most of the posts I have read.

 

Using an argument that since "almost everyone else is using star lanes in their games means that almost everyone prefers star lane based games" is not a good argument for not considering "free movement" style game. Yes, there are a lot out there BUT then take a look how many still have a following after the first few years. THEN take a look at how many people still play games like Civ 4 and 5, GalCiv, and some others mentioned in the topic that STILL have a large following. (BTW Civ 4 is still on my top 10 list)


Edited by mikeva1, 01 April 2016 - 02:32 PM.


Redshirt4Life #27 Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:39 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015
Civ games have terrain features which would work much like star lanes. Choke points can be created in the terrain, boats are needed to cross water. Even in the OP's example he showed off how terrain was used. In space its just open. Everything is open. Its a bad comparison.

Edited by Redshirt4Life, 01 April 2016 - 02:40 PM.


Provinfistoris #28 Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:40 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 175
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

View PostRedshirt4Life, on 01 April 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:

 

MOO 1 and MOO 2 have starlanes. Depends on how picky you want to be here. In neither can you actually move ships into open space, only between stars. You can speficy exactly what you are talking about when you mean remove starlanes in a response if you wish. I am against giving us the ability to move ships freely in space, unless its done similiar to stars! Stars! actually had a pretty good system for it.

Galciv rightfully won rewards for its AI which emphasizes the problem with open maps and the AI. Even the best AI system sucked at it.

 

Oh. My. God. Someone who remembers Stars!

 

Man I sort of miss that game sometimes. But only very very rarely.



Redshirt4Life #29 Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015

View PostProvinfistoris, on 01 April 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

 

Oh. My. God. Someone who remembers Stars!

 

Man I sort of miss that game sometimes. But only very very rarely.

 

I still play it sometimes. Very nostalgic. The system they used, with ram scoops, and limited fuel supplies. It was effectice for an open system, because planets were still very important. Ships needed a place to go for fuel, or they needed to be equipped with special engines, or fuel ships. The further away, the slower one should go to conserve fuel.
My worry is absent a system like that planets would just become dots and fights would be tediously spread across an open map. Maybe others have had different experience. I found galciv's open maps absolutely dreadful.

Edited by Redshirt4Life, 01 April 2016 - 02:48 PM.


CecilPaladin #30 Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:51 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 193
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

View PostRedshirt4Life, on 01 April 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:

 

MOO 1 and MOO 2 have starlanes. Depends on how picky you want to be here. In neither can you actually move ships into open space, only between stars.

 

You could technically move your fleet anywhere in MOO1 with hyperspace communications.  Direct your fleet to head to a specific star, then mid way redirect them to another star.  They could technically get to any point in space that way.  But yes, their heading was always from star to star.



Provinfistoris #31 Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:54 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 175
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

View PostRedshirt4Life, on 01 April 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

 

I still play it sometimes. Very nostalgic. The system they used, with ram scoops, and limited fuel supplies. It was effectice for an open system, because planets were still very important. Ships needed a place to go for fuel, or they needed to be equipped with special engines, or fuel ships. The further away, the slower one should go to conserve fuel.
My worry is absent a system like that planets would just become dots and fights would be tediously spread across an open map. Maybe others have had different experience. I found galciv's open maps absolutely dreadful.

 

I can say galcivs open map was a bit dreadful, but it worked. Especially since supply caps on fleet sizes emphasized multiple small fleets over gigantic ones. The only way to leverage that kind of system is with an open map. I certainly understand the pain of constantly deciding where to put that strategic starbase though, all the time. It did bog down, but I found the game to be overall pretty decent. I had freedom to move, just sometimes the AI's erratic diplomacy made no sense. A minor power wars me because I refused to give tech, I then proceed to kick their ass and pull down the Galactic councils wrath for bullying minor powers. Sounds like another game I know...

 

 



Redshirt4Life #32 Posted 01 April 2016 - 03:03 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015
I know I'm not speaking for everyone, and this is off topic a little, but...
I think galciv was one of the worst strategy games ever made. Its like, there is no good system in the whole game. Everything is just work with no reward. The racial bonuses were meaningless. Tech advances were redundant (we wanna talk about MOO needing redundant techs...). You get a new laser? its just another point. new factory advance, its another additive bonus. In fact everything was just an additive bonus. One on top of the other. Space combat was beyond boring. Space stations were tedious at best, at worst they were the number one reason I would stop playing mid game. There was this cool random event system, but it yielded the same additive bonuses. Why do I care about this event making the planets production 10% greater when my factories yield some 200-300% bonus to production and all those bonuses are additive with each other?

Gal civ starts off so awesome. It really does, but then I realize that all these cool unique things are a lie hiding a shallow meaningless system of work, and I would quit playing when I finally realized there was nothing fun in the whole game. All the work and rewards the game won, and it couldn't beat any of the space games developed in the 90's.

Andruski #33 Posted 01 April 2016 - 03:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 90
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostStelar_7, on 01 April 2016 - 04:41 AM, said:

Interesting post.

 

I think you missed one point about your custom game though. Your regional borders function as star lanes on land, your squares have a similar but lesser effect at sea, but you have very few boats. The number of boats directly limits the force capable of exploiting the free movement. In a game with no lanes, you would be able to attack anywhere, with or without a border. An army in the Central US, could strike at Chad if they so chose. Your game honors borders and that is pro star lanes.

 

What you really have a great case for though is a limited means of breaking star lane travel, for some, but not all territories. Some kind of jump gate ship, or an ability to pass a blockade for a small force. You also show that the force able to move in this way should be less than could be moved traditionally.

 

I agree with you, there should be a tech that allows a limited force to bypass a defended node. I like the idea of a stealthy ship which can create a temporary star lane, from another prepared position or ship.

 

Hi there, great analysis! 

 

Its true, the regional borders are static (wouldn't be classic risk if it wasn't a world map of course), and many times players don't even take to the seas if they're landlocked in Asia or something. Though every player starts with one ship to go with their initial setup, so right off the bat they do have mobility if they want to utilize it. But you're right that if we want to get technical, a true free-movement game would allow any country to attack any other country. My game certainly is not that, so lets call it a hybrid. 


I am fairly sure however that no proponent of free movement wants unlimited movement. With Moo 1&2, the range of the ships was vital to the free movement concept. Early game, you are only attacking locally, and due to range you likely can only reach that one star closest to your empire. and vice versa for your opponent. Functionally, its like having a lane between those two. If you take it, you then use it to get to the next one. However, the player who gets extra fuel range opens up new options and the game is on. 

 

In my Risk game, it is distantly similar to this. If you are in Central US, you really have no interest in attacking Chad, since you have a regional battle to fight. But you do start with one ship to help give you options (In the case of Central US, I have had many times where I put my ship in the Great Lakes to give a slight advantage when fighting Eastern US/Canada - we do have canals in the game as well, so if you own Quebec you can leave...but many times that boat ends up rusting there all game though). The limitations to ships are:

  1. You are only allowed to purchase one more a turn, max of 6 (its a major loss if you lose your whole fleet - but it does create a gradual progression for those who want to be a sea power - similar to tech in MOO)
  2. The distance you can move is limited to a die roll (But with more and more ships, you have more and more options to attack the enemy -consolidate in one fleet, or split them up to hit everywhere at once). 
  3. You cannot 'reload' a ship unless it is on your coast. Effectively making you 'refuel' it back home. 

 

Though the ships are technically unlimited in the distance they can move(#2), In practice, they will want to reload for new attacks (#3), so for practical reasons, they are limited by range. By late game, if a sea power, you will have not only amassed a large fleet, you will have acquired staging points near the enemy to reload from (Islands are quite important!) and have therefore increased the 'range' of your effective reach. It is by this point that Central US, having gained control of its region, will use its new coastal territories to send that fleet over to Africa to reach Chad (something that can never happen in classic Risk as N America and Africa are not connected by a dotted line)

 

I suppose that the big point is that once you stabilize your region, you can strike any other region. You are not thinking in terms of a single country connected to another single country and so on (the star-lane; Central US vs Chad example) you are instead thinking of how I want my empire to reach theirs (N America can attack Africa), and I have countless options to pick from. It allows for big picture thinking, instead of going from one connection to the next connection to the next. 

 

It is also worth pointing out (in regards to the thread you have about the One-and-done battles - linked for others: http://forum.masteroforion.com/index.php?/topic/1140-increase-space-fights-no-more-1-fight-and-done/) that in my game every time a player tries to dump all his armies in a single territory and 'sweep' the world (like he is probably used to doing in classic risk with its 'lanes;), he inevitably fails. Every time. He will certainly crush his neighbors, but he is always out maneuvered and loses a war of attrition. His strategy works in classic risk because he can hold the choke and no one can go around it. In my custom-hybrid-fluid-open-free-etc game, he loses. period. 

 

There is a natural progression to the game. As your control over territory grows, so does your reach and your options, but also so do your potential vulnerabilities. 

 

Early game battle for local control:

 


...and late game regional/global battle:


The first rule of the game is I play as Black. Looks like the previous turn I had invaded Africa, which has since been repulsed and my ship needs to return home to reload. Now though, I've established a base in England and am ready to have a D-Day into Europe (pink), and can pick anywhere for the invasion. Meanwhile yellow decided to break my continent bonus over in Canada - he must've had a high die roll from Kamchatka (the north-eastern-most Asia territory) and avoided my 'choke point' of Alaska. Yellow's 3 armies managed to break my continent despite my much larger defensive force thanks to the freedom of ships.

 

My large N/S American empire has many vulnerable points someone could attack which I must defend if I am to keep my continent bonus. In classic risk, generally you put everything on that choke point and all the backwater territories just have the minimal 1 army. You can see here, that I have far more troops invested in defense than I do have in my attack - AND YELLOW STILL GOT IN. CURSE YOUUU!  This is why I do not believe that Stacks of Doom are the same in both star lanes & no star lanes. If I had my stack of doom over in England, with maybe a defending force on the 'choke points' of Alaska/Brazil, thanks to ships they still could strike virtually anywhere and break my continents, totally avoiding my stacks. Even here with many defending units, they still got to me. 

 

So to recap. I think you're right. What I have is more of a hybrid. However, its one that has a natural progression which grows out of the constraints of the local, step-by-step, limited to adjacent countries (lanes), focus; to a much more grand-strategy (free movement) focus, with virtually unlimited options. 

 

 

 


Edited by Andruski, 01 April 2016 - 03:54 PM.


Redshirt4Life #34 Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:34 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015

If we are classifying MOO 1 & 2 as free movement I am cool with that system, though I want to note that ships were not able to move outside of stars and they were additionally limited by range, so it was still a very limited system. Limited to the point where I don't consider it free movement at all really. That said, I do like that system.
 



Andruski #35 Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:39 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 90
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011
Redshirt I am with you. Honestly I never liked the real free movement of Gal Civ, but much preferred Moo1 and 2. 'Free movement' here is really just for the purpose of distinguishing between star lanes and non-star lanes 

Redshirt4Life #36 Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015
Awesome, I'm sorry I misunderstood your point.

Stelar_7 #37 Posted 01 April 2016 - 07:30 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 341
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

Andruski,

 

I still see you as advocating less restricted movement, not free movement. I'm looking at your pictures for my examples, previously I chose two countries I could see that had territories land-locking them. Now I'd like to look at your example where yellow has disrupted North America's continent bonus with a raiding force. There are three armies shown, or 1 boat's worth. A system that allowed for minimal avoidance of star lanes would allow for this effect. So would sending a small force to the rear of an empire to attack from an unexpected direction. Yellow should have taken the territory below the one they took to make it take longer for your defensive forces to converge on them. Those defenders need to travel along lanes, through territories, the geography of Alaska allows that group to engage immediately, however the eastern US group will need 2 turns to respond. (Had they gone 1 territory lower Alaska would also be 2 turns away.)

 

If this were free movement, all armies would be able to "boat" to any territory within their range. There would be no front lines, just regions of nodal defense. However far a blob can travel in 1 turn to respond to an attacker would dictate the size nodal points can defend, and would give significant advantage to small empires with multi planet systems, and penalties to empires that spread out. In your example there would be no raid by yellow, enough troops to crush all defenders would have arrived.

 

The developers have said two significant things on this topic. 1, A tech means of bypassing star lane choke points is being looked into. 2. Having star lanes allows them to give us a more challenging AI. So I would say you and I are likely to be happy, and the no star lanes folks are likely to be disappointed.

 

Why do I like star lanes?

 

For me, the star lanes, no star lanes, debate is about what kind of war is the best analogy for space war. If space war is like a land war, then territory can not be bypassed, every inch has to be fought over. If space war is like a naval battle, then the fights happen over nodal points of interest, and the nodes can be bypassed. (Provided the defenders of that node can't strike out).

 

If we eliminate star lanes, then an attacker can always retreat safely after their initial thrust. They can also bypass any static defenses, so all defense must be mobile. The jump gate forts will cease to be a thing in a free movement game. With star lanes, it is difficult, but possible, to cut an attacker off from their support. (I did exactly this when I exploited a free move treaty to suck the main fleet of the Alkari to their colonies on the other side of mine close to the Klackons. When I ended the treaty that force was trapped from support and the Klackons killed it for me.) It is also possible to attack a central node, and divide an enemy so their empire can not support its own defense. 

 

Neither cutting off an attacker, or dividing a defender mean much with our current 1 and done fighting, but if we get the ability to recover from a hit, as you have in most other war games, those abilities will be priceless and add depth to the tactics and strategy of the game.

 

Finally, one of the reasons that choke points are as prevalent as they are is the number of stars with 1 or 2 lanes and the lack of "rings" of systems in our galaxies. If we added another ring or 2 to the Huge galaxy then getting around to the rear of an empire would be a lot more likely. I think if we had a ring of "systems" with no planets at the edge of the galaxy it would provide every attacker a chance to bypass front lines, and make us all have to watch our rear areas more. I would not want to add many more inhabitable systems, that would bog the game down and the production available from that kind of system proliferation would outclass reasonable defense, and make the tedium of moving ships from where they are made to where they are needed horrible. How often do you make a colony ship in 2 turns, and then spend 10 watching it crawl to the planet?



CecilPaladin #38 Posted 01 April 2016 - 07:32 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 193
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

Meanwhile yellow decided to break my continent bonus over in Canada - he must've had a high die roll from Kamchatka (the north-eastern-most Asia territory) and avoided my 'choke point' of Alaska. Yellow's 3 armies managed to break my continent despite my much larger defensive force thanks to the freedom of ships.

 

I don't understand this part.  The old Risk had "star lanes" which prevented Africa from attacking the West side of Canada.  In your hybrid game, it looks like they attacked them directly?  How do ships do their rolls?  Can you basically attack anywhere on the planet?

 

If so, lets think about the logistics of that during say the WW2 period.  How long would it take Africa to send ships directly to Western Canada?  Could they go directly?  They would have to sail around South America, and go all the way north to reach there.  Back in that period, that could take months.  They might of had to refuel as well along the way.  So does your game take into account travel time or refueling needs?

 

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Unless you overlay land masses and stuff in the way.  So if you look at it from that perspective, perhaps these "star lanes" are a pretty accurate representation of really what's going on in the world.  Could we have invaded Nazi controlled France in WW2 without England?  Perhaps.  But it was MUCH easier to launch our D-Day invasion from across the English Channel than across the Atlantic.

 

For the folks who believe choke points don't bring any strategic value, I would recommend you watch the movie 300.

 

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/review/300-review-01.jpg


Edited by CecilPaladin, 01 April 2016 - 07:36 PM.


Redshirt4Life #39 Posted 01 April 2016 - 08:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015

Now that I've turned sides,

All of the above things exist without star lanes, and yes MOO has taken into account movement speeds and range since the first edition was released without using star lanes. I'll list off what makes life without starlanes possible before continuing. Also note that I am talking about a system that was (MOO classic) more then the system that is.

  • Ships can not change course on the way to their destination.
  • The enemy can see the direction enemy ships within range are heading as well as the speed they are moving.
  • Ships are limited by range. They must always remain a set distance (set by tech) away from a friendly system for logistical support.
  • Ships are limited by speed (set by tech).


Choke points and strategic holdings
due to restrictions of range and the asymmetrical placement of systems, natural choke points would frequently occur. Often a single planet would work as a staging point for an empire to attack several of the enemy's planets, making it quite a hot target. Consequently, the opposite could also occur where a cluster of planets would be vulnerable to attack requiring defences to be spread out. This didn't require artificial star lanes, but works about the same way.

Taking ships out of the fight

There were also natural restrictions to points of attack, because we could not communicate with out ships once they launched.  When a ship enters hyperspace, it is out of the game. This adds an additional cost to attacking the secondary planets, and gives the opponent time to respond to the threat. He also essentially has free time to burn where a portion of the enemy ships are out of the game, giving him the opportunity to launch a counter offensive. Don't forget, the opponent sees those ships moving to attack his secondary systems and should be able to tell exactly how long he has to get a defence force ready.

time to target
If a player takes all his fleets and tells them all to move to a single system, they won't all arrive at the same time, and they will spend an unnecessary amount of time out of the game. Without starlanes, it is still essential to set staging points where fleets merge before their attack begins, but a smart player can also time the departure of his ships so they all arrive from different locations at the same time. There are risks associated with each, but they are good tactical risks. A player could hide the true size of his fleet, or just as easily broadcast his attack before he wants to. If the enemy has good scanners he can see distant ships approaching his system, and he would know an attack is coming.
Overall even without star lanes its favorable in general to have ships at the closest planet before launching the attack to give the opponent less time to react once you pick your target.

Costly retreat
Continuing the above, a player can indeed retreat his ships back to the core planets where they are safe, but, they are still out of the fight. Its a free meal leaving all the outer planets without a portion of the fleet around to defend them, so I don't see exactly why this would be an issue.
 

Playing to strengths

Races like the klackons needed to be very direct in their assaults in MOO1, but their race was also well-known for having big ships, tons of components, and a bonus to production overall, which favored them taking on these direct assaults. Races like the alkarie were very much the polar opposite. They had small, fast ships and no production bonus. Using their speed the Alkarie would be able to minimize the cost of attacking secondary targets and bypassing chokepoints, while the Klackons were neigh incapable of doing anything besides attacking the closest planet with everything they got.

So we can see that a player can build his ships to favor one strategy over the other. If he builds fast long-range ships, he can reduce the cost of attacking softer targets in the innards of his enemy's border, but by doing so his ships would also be less capable of taking that opponent on in a direct fight.


Edited by Redshirt4Life, 01 April 2016 - 08:53 PM.


Andruski #40 Posted 01 April 2016 - 08:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 90
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostCecilPaladin, on 01 April 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Meanwhile yellow decided to break my continent bonus over in Canada - he must've had a high die roll from Kamchatka (the north-eastern-most Asia territory) and avoided my 'choke point' of Alaska. Yellow's 3 armies managed to break my continent despite my much larger defensive force thanks to the freedom of ships.

 

I don't understand this part.  The old Risk had "star lanes" which prevented Africa from attacking the West side of Canada.  In your hybrid game, it looks like they attacked them directly?  How do ships do their rolls?  Can you basically attack anywhere on the planet?

...

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Unless you overlay land masses and stuff in the way.  So if you look at it from that perspective, perhaps these "star lanes" are a pretty accurate representation of really what's going on in the world.  Could we have invaded Nazi controlled France in WW2 without England?  Perhaps.  But it was MUCH easier to launch our D-Day invasion from across the English Channel than across the Atlantic.

 

haha. The answer is because the world is round. Yellow not only has Africa but is in Asia, all the way to Kamchatka (the northeastern most Asia territory, N of Japan in the top right but also represented as in the same sea zone as Alaska on the left side of the board. Ships themselves are limited by a single die roll per turn for range. So a maximum of 6 spaces may be moved (with the possibility of moving diagonals at 1.5 moves instead of the 2 it takes to go over then up)

 

Also, for what its worth, We kinda did have an entire North-Africa/Italy campaign a long while before D-day. This was called the 'soft underbelly' of the Nazis and was basically exactly what we're talking about: Yellow attacked my soft side on the west coast, but if there was a dotted line, he would be forced to go through Alaska. It is a raid, not a full on invasion. He will still need a 'D-Day' of his own, but he slowed me down a bit (meanwhile I think we quit the game here because pink was convinced they were doomed in Europe because I really was about to have a D-day on them, and gave me the win). In addition, the 'Island hopping' campaign in the Pacific also leapfrogged the heavily defended Japanese strongholds while simultaneously cutting them off from supply.

 

Edit: Also, probably should throw in the Maginot Line. Seeing as that was essentially the equivalent of the WWII Stack of Doom defenses holding the 'lane' between Germany and France...and proved utterly useless as the Germans simply went around. 

 

I also am quite familiar with the history behind the movie 300 (though not much about the movie itself is historical) and would like to point out that though holding a choke point like that allows for very few to challenge overwhelming numbers, it is the exception, not the rule. The very reason why you have movies made about it is because it is so rare. In fact, the reason why the 300 failed (really there was closer to 3,000 different Greeks holding different passes) was because the Persians were able to flank their position...which happens to be exactly the sort of thing i'm talking about: being able to go around the choke point. 

 

 

View PostStelar_7, on 01 April 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

Andruski,

 

I still see you as advocating less restricted movement, not free movement. I'm looking at your pictures for my examples, previously I chose two countries I could see that had territories land-locking them. Now I'd like to look at your example where yellow has disrupted North America's continent bonus with a raiding force. There are three armies shown, or 1 boat's worth. A system that allowed for minimal avoidance of star lanes would allow for this effect. So would sending a small force to the rear of an empire to attack from an unexpected direction. Yellow should have taken the territory below the one they took to make it take longer for your defensive forces to converge on them. Those defenders need to travel along lanes, through territories, the geography of Alaska allows that group to engage immediately, however the eastern US group will need 2 turns to respond. (Had they gone 1 territory lower Alaska would also be 2 turns away.)

 

If this were free movement, all armies would be able to "boat" to any territory within their range. There would be no front lines, just regions of nodal defense. However far a blob can travel in 1 turn to respond to an attacker would dictate the size nodal points can defend, and would give significant advantage to small empires with multi planet systems, and penalties to empires that spread out. In your example there would be no raid by yellow, enough troops to crush all defenders would have arrived.

 

 

Yellow made a mistake. No doubt about it. Normally I help people out from those sorts of goofs but if I remember correctly, he was a veteran player who knew better, and also my #1 threat. So in the words of Napoleon, Never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake. On the subject of Yellow's ship and its relation to MOO, he does have a limited range; the die roll. Range would be a vital component of a more 'free' movement system (as it was in Moo1/2) So, his range was really only 1-6 spaces from his home territory of Kamchatka (again, partially represented in the top left corner, sharing the zone with Alaska).


As to advocating a less restricted movement and not 'free' movement, you're right. I want the movement of Moo 1 & 2, not GalCiv (which was also just mentioned above). Using the term 'free' was convenient instead of saying 'non-starlane movement', but it is true, Moo 1/2 was not truly a free movement system, and the term caused undue confusion. apologies. 

 

Edit2: Want to throw out there that I really appreciate Redshirt's above post. In particular, how things like choke points were naturally occurring due to range/speed, and did not have to be artificially forced through arbitrary lanes. I am not anti-choke point; I DO want to have my own '300' moment in my games, just not one followed by another and another and another because i am forced to follow a limited pathway. 


Edited by Andruski, 01 April 2016 - 09:22 PM.





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users