Shoot! Shoot now! NOW! Um... please?

[Locklyn]

 

So a group of players would get the info needed to cover every situation, and Eventually produce an updated rulebook. Say 6 months to a year after they get the info, Gee, Ill do it.

 

No Gary, AS Russ said and as is being discussed in the Game development section all this will be discussed on the forum openly. It is more a matter of sorting out the rubbish in the rules like the Diplomacy section and inserting the actual rules as they stand through all changes on turn sheets etc.

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

[Breoghan]

If someone is flying around ground fortresses, then how can that be anything other than an exploit? I think one problem is that I have yet to hear of any player sanctioned for obvious exploits.

For example, lets say your HW forces get defeated. Of course anything being built that turn appears in the production phase. So maybe next turn you move those ships somewhere else, hoping the are not noticed and you avoid a battle they would lose. Your plan is to move them back on a later turn when more ships are built, as you try to retake your skies. Of course this is easily countered by having all points in the system covered by a screen ship, so any such chicanery is countered by your detecting the move (and calling on Pete to correct). Again, it's more annoying than anything. It does more to say things about the player doing this than actually effect the game.

I must be missing something here - how is it wrong, or cheating, to try and avoid combat with your inferior defending force- trying to preserve them until you can produce more ships to use against attackers? Its like saying it isn't fair to have other fleets in adjoining systems that weren't there when the attacking force came and wiped out the rest. If the different orbits are significant for things such as intra-system actions, then it should be just as significant for combat. It is up to the attacker, surely, to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy they are attacking, rather than requiring the defender to attack the intruder's fist with his chin!

 

If a defender can move fleets and other assets off-world, even when under attack, the best of luck to him as far as I'm concerned! (And no, I haven't been on either end of such an incident. I am simply looking at what appears to be the question in a non-partisan way)

[Ixitixl]

Breoghan

 

What your missing is that some players are moving Surface Fortress from the world they were built, to a warp point. Surface Fortress are supposed to remain located on the world and are not actually a "ship", hence the x9 integrity bonus. I have even head this has been done without the use of a ship with the appropriate tractor beam/magnetic grapples... Something else that should not be possible

[WKE235]

If someone is flying around ground fortresses, then how can that be anything other than an exploit? I think one problem is that I have yet to hear of any player sanctioned for obvious exploits.

For example, lets say your HW forces get defeated. Of course anything being built that turn appears in the production phase. So maybe next turn you move those ships somewhere else, hoping the are not noticed and you avoid a battle they would lose. Your plan is to move them back on a later turn when more ships are built, as you try to retake your skies. Of course this is easily countered by having all points in the system covered by a screen ship, so any such chicanery is countered by your detecting the move (and calling on Pete to correct). Again, it's more annoying than anything. It does more to say things about the player doing this than actually effect the game.

I must be missing something here - how is it wrong, or cheating, to try and avoid combat with your inferior defending force- trying to preserve them until you can produce more ships to use against attackers? Its like saying it isn't fair to have other fleets in adjoining systems that weren't there when the attacking force came and wiped out the rest. If the different orbits are significant for things such as intra-system actions, then it should be just as significant for combat. It is up to the attacker, surely, to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy they are attacking, rather than requiring the defender to attack the intruder's fist with his chin!

 

If a defender can move fleets and other assets off-world, even when under attack, the best of luck to him as far as I'm concerned! (And no, I haven't been on either end of such an incident. I am simply looking at what appears to be the question in a non-partisan way)

It is not wrong to try and avoid combat with an inferior force. That's just common sense. But, if the inferior force has NO ENGINES, it cannot move by itself. And trying to do so is wrong.

 

By design, Defense Sats and Surface Fortresses have no engines (the trade-off for this is having 3x of 9x integrity). Now the defender could build a ship, equip it with towing capacity so they could move a mass of immobile items like defense satellites, and off they could go. But even then, Surface Fortresses are supposedly dug into the ground (why they get 9x instead of 3x for Satellites). So they cannot move .. period. What folks are seeing are blatent attempts to try and move fleets of "ships" consisting of all defense satellites or surface fortresses (IE .. No engines at all, or fortresses that should never move). That is what is wrong.

 

Sure the defender does what they want in designing and executing their defense (and as you said, best of luck). But the defender has to choose. They can build satellites that cannot move on their own to get a 3x to integrity. They can get 9x integrity for building fortresses which can never move. They can build ships that do move (maybe even warp) but get no defense bonus. They can design ships that can tow around the Satellites as needed, to get a mix of movement and defense. They choose. But they cannot choose to build non-movable fortresses, and simply move them to other locations as a flaw in the code happense to allow this.

 

 

No Gary, AS Russ said and as is being discussed in the Game development section all this will be discussed on the forum openly. It is more a matter of sorting out the rubbish in the rules like the Diplomacy section and inserting the actual rules as they stand through all changes on turn sheets etc.

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

 

It sounds as if what your proposing is something like Wikipedia, but for RTG. An open source RTGpedia. People can come and go and post their comments, findings, tables, etcetera. And then every so often portions of it could be "approved" by the keepers of the galaxy and moved to a safer spot for read only, sort of as a baseline for further changes and the like.

 

Interesting.

[Breoghan]

It is not wrong to try and avoid combat with an inferior force. That's just common sense. But, if the inferior force has NO ENGINES, it cannot move by itself. And trying to do so is wrong.

 

Ahhhh - but I wasn't talking about the engineless ones, rather those WITH engines that come off the production line after the battle is over. Sorry, but I probably wasn't overly clear on that. No question about the ones without - no-brainer stuff, that.

[Hughestrog]

 

It sounds as if what your proposing is something like Wikipedia, but for RTG. An open source RTGpedia. People can come and go and post their comments, findings, tables, etcetera. And then every so often portions of it could be "approved" by the keepers of the galaxy and moved to a safer spot for read only, sort of as a baseline for further changes and the like.

 

Interesting.

 

Krelnet did put together a useful document that I have saved somewhere as 'Boards'.

 

Krelnet had gone through the board posts and had everything in relevant sections. This would be a useful starting point wouldn't it? It was quite big though.

[Lord Uriel]

 

It sounds as if what your proposing is something like Wikipedia, but for RTG. An open source RTGpedia. People can come and go and post their comments, findings, tables, etcetera. And then every so often portions of it could be "approved" by the keepers of the galaxy and moved to a safer spot for read only, sort of as a baseline for further changes and the like.

 

Interesting.

 

Krelnet did put together a useful document that I have saved somewhere as 'Boards'.

 

Krelnet had gone through the board posts and had everything in relevant sections. This would be a useful starting point wouldn't it? It was quite big though.

It might be the same as the Eternus document of the same nature. Only the flying insect knows for certain.

 

But, yes anything that has valid information is usable. My own small project has to wait until after school is over (two more weeks).

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

Krelnet did put together a useful document that I have saved somewhere as 'Boards'.

 

Krelnet had gone through the board posts and had everything in relevant sections. This would be a useful starting point wouldn't it? It was quite big though.

I'd love to take credit for that project, but it was someone else who did all that good work. Don't remember who, at the moment.

[Hughestrog]

Krelnet did put together a useful document that I have saved somewhere as 'Boards'.

 

Krelnet had gone through the board posts and had everything in relevant sections. This would be a useful starting point wouldn't it? It was quite big though.

I'd love to take credit for that project, but it was someone else who did all that good work. Don't remember who, at the moment.

 

Been drinking too much ale- it was Eternus. How could have I forgotten! More mead anyone?

[Locklyn]

Towing fortress and orbital code is getting revamped to work in a much better way from this end. I've retroactively moved them back to where they came from in such cases and have added dead ships back into action, so it's not something to fret about.

 

Pete,

 

Is this a part of the code that is being rebuilt since it didn't seem to take the last time round

 

 

/Locklyn