G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)
I'm doing a minor rewrite of my how-to-play strategy guide. One thing I
wonder about increasingly is, are allies really a good idea? Below, is
some draft text from the new document. But I don't want to give newbies
bad information, so I'd like to debate the point on this newsgroup to
see if I am right.
--- extract follows ---
Experienced players can usually be spotted by the fact that they rapidly
form alliances. So what? I've long had my doubts about the usefulness of
very close alliances. In my experience, they get grossly complicated
really quickly. Conventional Planets wisdom is that alliances always win
- but this is not true. Of late, I have become quite convinced that
close alliances with other players usually dilutes your strength and
reduces your flexibility.
The main reasons alliances win a lot, are: firstly - that two or more
players pool their resources; and economy is a big part of the game. But
due to tying up ships and other resources you're sharing, it's an
inefficient way to boost your economy. Lone players can strike it rich -
for example by acquiring lots of Amorphs, successfully manipulating the
contraband market, or (for some races) capturing lots of prisoners. When
this happens, I've seen them steamroller alliances. The other reasons
alliances win, are because it is easier for them to attack from two
directions, or they pool their "unique" abilities such as chunnelling.
But most of these abilities depend on hull devices - and hull plans can
be Spied, traded for, or captured.
There is another reason that people in alliances often seem to win.
That's because they're better diplomats - better manipulators. They
instinctively understand that socialising with the other players gives
them immense leverage.
<There follows some stuff about how alliances can be used to give you
diplomatic leverage in the game, but I'll cut that for the sake of
brevity... I finish up by saying:>
Some other points about alliances
* Uneccessary alliances sap your time and strength.
* An "alliance" doesn't need to be military. It could be a group of
players who all agree to manipulate the contraband market in sync,
perhaps to the detriment of another.
* When, whether and how to ally is clearly the most important choice
you make in a game, since no choice will be perfect, you are likely to
get dragged into new theatres of conflict, etc.
Any comments? Particularly on whether alliances are Fool's Gold?
--
Paul Honigmann
I'm doing a minor rewrite of my how-to-play strategy guide. One thing I
wonder about increasingly is, are allies really a good idea? Below, is
some draft text from the new document. But I don't want to give newbies
bad information, so I'd like to debate the point on this newsgroup to
see if I am right.
--- extract follows ---
Experienced players can usually be spotted by the fact that they rapidly
form alliances. So what? I've long had my doubts about the usefulness of
very close alliances. In my experience, they get grossly complicated
really quickly. Conventional Planets wisdom is that alliances always win
- but this is not true. Of late, I have become quite convinced that
close alliances with other players usually dilutes your strength and
reduces your flexibility.
The main reasons alliances win a lot, are: firstly - that two or more
players pool their resources; and economy is a big part of the game. But
due to tying up ships and other resources you're sharing, it's an
inefficient way to boost your economy. Lone players can strike it rich -
for example by acquiring lots of Amorphs, successfully manipulating the
contraband market, or (for some races) capturing lots of prisoners. When
this happens, I've seen them steamroller alliances. The other reasons
alliances win, are because it is easier for them to attack from two
directions, or they pool their "unique" abilities such as chunnelling.
But most of these abilities depend on hull devices - and hull plans can
be Spied, traded for, or captured.
There is another reason that people in alliances often seem to win.
That's because they're better diplomats - better manipulators. They
instinctively understand that socialising with the other players gives
them immense leverage.
<There follows some stuff about how alliances can be used to give you
diplomatic leverage in the game, but I'll cut that for the sake of
brevity... I finish up by saying:>
Some other points about alliances
* Uneccessary alliances sap your time and strength.
* An "alliance" doesn't need to be military. It could be a group of
players who all agree to manipulate the contraband market in sync,
perhaps to the detriment of another.
* When, whether and how to ally is clearly the most important choice
you make in a game, since no choice will be perfect, you are likely to
get dragged into new theatres of conflict, etc.
Any comments? Particularly on whether alliances are Fool's Gold?
--
Paul Honigmann