Game 52745: xeno, Cpt Fishmonger in 'New Moonbase'

You are here: Stellar Forces > Your Games > Game 52745: xeno, Cpt Fishmonger in 'New Moonbase'

• Why is my men only on half APs in this game? I thought this rule only applied to multiplayer games?
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• No, it applies to all games, since there's always a chance in any type of game that the first player can kill the second player before the second player has had a chance.
  Posted by SteveSmith 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Well that can spoil specific games as the attacker needs to move fast before the defenders can get into position, this game is partly that way and Big Push certainly is I would say. And Moonbase Assault the campaign version needs the attackers to move very quick. Some games are weighted evenly by giving the attacker first move, if that is reduced by half it weights the game in favour of the defenders, takes away surprise which has been built into the whole dynamic of the game. There is no way I can kill the second player in this game as the starting points are so far apart, it now gives the defender the advantage. I'll carry on as I think I might offset it by being more experienced in this particular game than my opponent is but there are now certain games I won't play as the attacker anymore.
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• It's impossible for Steve to get right. Some games are naturally stacked in the attacker's favour (I'm looking at you Outhouses and Assassins).
  Posted by Cpt Fishmonger 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• It's not impossible or at least not what I'm referring to which is the blanket rule not applying to every game. Of course it would take a lot of time to work out which games the first player can kill their opponent before they have a chance and which games they can't do that, there are plenty you can't, where the rule doesn't make a difference but actually alters the dynamic of the specific game now. Even maybe where it actually now allows the second player to deal out game changing damage first turn against the attacker.
  
  But it's not us who will have to spend the time trying to work it out (although we could all help) and certainly not us having to implement the change to individual games, and if I was in the same boat I might do exactly the same and just make all games that way. It all comes down whether you think it makes a significant difference or not doing it in a game specific rather blanket way and weighing that up against the time and effort that would be needed.
  
  There is always the option of making it an option itself whether to apply the rule or not when creating the game, giving the individual the choice of turning it on or off, depending on whether it is default or not. Again, I'm mindful of how difficult and time consuming it might be to implement that. I don't know, just an idea.
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• The amount of work required to implement that would be prohibitive. Far simpler to retain the universal settings and players will vote with their feet (in terms of map preferences).
  Posted by Cpt Fishmonger 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I agree that it makes some missions slightly unfair, but Cpt Fishmonger is correct in the amount of work. My solution is to keep the "50% aps for the first player" feature, and if any missions are unbalanced, adjust them accordingly. I usually do this every 6 months or so by looking at the game stats and seeing if one side is winning to often. (The stats are here if anyone is interested: https://www.stellarforces.com/dsr/miscstatspage.cls )
  Posted by SteveSmith 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I still think you are using a hammer to fix something a screwdriver would do. But what do I know. Lone voice so I must be wrong. C'est la vie. I won't mention it again.
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• No I will. Has the case been proven that in 80 plus missions Rabid wins because of his propensity to pull out his massive weapon and shoot his awesome massive firepower against his opponents. No. Mange tout.
  
  Big boss says suck it up.
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I tend to take the attitude - any rule affects all of us, so it's an even playing field. I agree with xeno though, my tactic of using a rocket launcher on the first turn is hit and miss at best, and you can generally defend against it by positioning your units sensibly on deployment. I'm not a massive fan of the reduced hit points, although it was MUCH worse when I didn't realise it was a thing, now I allow for it. I'm happy to go with the majority vote :)
  Posted by RABID 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Can we have a vote on this? I think it is detrimental to most games. I know I'm a real pain in the arse but only because I care.
  
  Maybe a compromise, only 4 player games?
  
  I vote against it. I'm a democrat so I'll accept the outcome and shut my gob.
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I?m happy to go with the majority, but my vote is against it :)
  Posted by RABID 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I vote to keep it.
  
  Because I'm an insufferable contrarian.
  Posted by Cpt Fishmonger 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I don't mind either way (apart from the fact that not changing it means I won't have to do any work. :) ). We'll see what the result is in a few days and I'll set it according to the majority.
  Posted by SteveSmith 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I liked trialling it out but while it has some merit I think we should drop it. I've gone off it, find it irritating now if I'm first turn player. I don't think we need it anymore. I've learnt mostly how to dodge Rabid's rockets, Kung Fu Matrix manoeuvre:) Vote against
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Ps the Rabid Rocket Launcher phenomenon was mostly/only on Colonisation mission but I thought the remedy was to put more random building structures to block easy first turn rocket launcher hits?
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• *Colonisation 2 mission
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• The game is played by a small cadre of players with a few that drop in on the rare occasion or pass through to something else. Sad fact. Futhermore very few play seem to play the single missions anymore and just play the four player colonisation games which have evolved and are great tactical fun, and frustration.
  
  When I came back I was surprised to see the colonisation games had this new half AP rule, but I understood the logic and accepted it, but when I found the 80 plus single missions had it applied I was literally dumbfounded. As someone who still likes to play the single or non four player missions (whatever you wish to call them) I had to protest. Maybe because I do I saw it more than others and recognised the issues, or there is a general apathy of indifference, but I'm very surprised no one raised any issue with it before. Anyway, I think my tone was off at times and I apologise, but this really felt so wrong for the game I had to voice my opposition to it and raise debate and a vote. I'll return to my corner and enjoy playing this excellent game. :)
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Hi all. Due to a config error, SF hasn't been sending out emails for a few days, so apologies for that. Secondly, it looks like the vote is to remove the half-APs feature, so I'll remove it.
  Posted by SteveSmith 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I think it's the best thing all round especially concerning the smaller missions.
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I don't think we had apathy on here, just the colony games seem to be where the action is. I haven't played missions like Outhouses for a very long time but like an old film I would like to go back again and enjoy it and other missions in their original form.
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• How about we try out the AP150 grenade or the AP200? Bigger blast radius for large map Underground colony missions.
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• I must admit I haven't played a non-colony game for months now; they almost seem a bit boring compared to the colony missions. :) I'm not sure about larger grenades though. I have enough trouble avoiding the AP100's which can devastate (as Xeno is proving in our current COlony mission!).
  Posted by SteveSmith 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Maybe for a new colony mission...even bigger underground map...bigger weapons...6 players :)
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• My AP 100 grenades are like Rabid's penchant for Rocket Launchers. Would love a grenade launcher! Find clones can under throw them and blow themselves up sometimes. Curious to know the percentage for overthrowing and underthrowing.
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Maybe an underground colony mission with an AP 200 in the middle!
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Impervious to any explosion. The Holy Hand Grenade!
  Posted by xeno 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• Some kind of super-weapon in the middle sounds like a good idea, it would create a real race to centre.
  Posted by SteveSmith 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• And six players would be great, as long as the turn turnaround time wasn't too long.
  Posted by SteveSmith 1 years ago [Login to reply]



• 6 players, big bombs & maybe extra AP's, I reckon player reduction would fairly quick. Underground mayhem :)
  Posted by petermock 1 years ago [Login to reply]

This topic has now been closed.

Email Address:

Password:

Forgotten your password?

Register using the Android or PC app