Retro configuration, some final comments

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

1) I really didn't miss land units all that much. I'm suprised by that.
2) I did miss retreat, I also very much disliked NOMOBCOST turned off, If
forts can fire off rounds like a submachine gun, why can't my ships.
3) Mixed feelings on anti. I dislike anti, I think the game is better
without it, but I believe successful anti's help your sector loyalty (It
took way too long to old_own a sector this game) and killing off that last
che or two in a sector was a pain in the butt.
4) I still think tech grew way to fast this game in comparison to eff/mob
gain of planes and ships , even a 30pt gain/update would have balanced this
out better
5) Banks are way to juicy of a target, defense is all but impossible,
"improve" would have helped (you can move bars around somewhat then)
6) BTU's are an annoyance. Need lots of BTU's? Log in, wait a few hours,
use up BTU's, quit-restart-and you have a fresh batch of 640. At least give
me a "refresh btu" command, that bypasses the 1 minute log-out log-in
annoyance.
7) Submarines were perfect in this game
8) Ore seemed a bit too plentiful (or maybe this was because I actually had
an uninterrupted economy this game) But it was nice not having to plan out
LCM/HCM production every update
9) High tech F1/F2's were way too strong. Cost/Damage ratio better than
JF1's.


I remember more, Thanks again to the Dieties for running this game, I had a
blast, and I'll see you all in the next long term game

Mark
Manetheren (Yes, I had my country name mis-spelled the entire game)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

> 4) I still think tech grew way to fast this game in comparison to eff/mob
> gain of planes and ships , even a 30pt gain/update would have balanced
this
> out better

I agree - tech was way too fast. The tech leaders were approaching tech 200
before the economies had finally expanded to suffient size to allow fodders
to
be rolled.

> 9) High tech F1/F2's were way too strong. Cost/Damage ratio better than
> JF1's.

Agreed

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:7yeknu1j3j.fsf@pond.sub.org...
> "Mark Stokje" <mst_dont_spam_me@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > 3) Mixed feelings on anti. I dislike anti, I think the game is better
> > without it, but I believe successful anti's help your sector loyalty (It
> > took way too long to old_own a sector this game) and killing off that
last
> > che or two in a sector was a pain in the butt.
>
> Anti is a chore, and opens the door to gamey tricks. There must be a
> better way to help with getting rid of the last few che.
>
> I'm not sure lack of anti made sector conversion so slow. Could have
> been just the number of ETUs.

Your right, Loyalty only affected when "you blew it"
Leaves Low ETU's and my substandard happiness (I ignored happy way too long)

> > 4) I still think tech grew way to fast this game in comparison to
eff/mob
> > gain of planes and ships , even a 30pt gain/update would have balanced
this
> > out better
> > 5) Banks are way to juicy of a target, defense is all but impossible,
> > "improve" would have helped (you can move bars around somewhat then)
>
> Agreed. A tactical strike on a sector should be possible, with
> appropriate effects. But the effect of bombing bars is permanent.
> That's wrong.
>
> Current sector infrastructure is a disgrace from a usability point of
> view. I'm glad we didn't have it.

Superbars just seems wrong though, maybe the can get bombed back to dust

> > 8) Ore seemed a bit too plentiful (or maybe this was because I actually
had
> > an uninterrupted economy this game) But it was nice not having to plan
out
> > LCM/HCM production every update
>
> Resources were scarcer than default, and more concentrated, except
> gold. I liked it, except for gold. Gold mining is such a chore.
>
I did like the ore setup as well, made island planning much more
interesting.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:7yeknu1j3j.fsf@pond.sub.org...
> "Mark Stokje" <mst_dont_spam_me@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > 1) I really didn't miss land units all that much. I'm suprised by that.
>
> I did. Land units need fixing (penetration depth is arguably
> excessive). But abolishing them takes away a fun element of the game.
> A bit too slow a grind and too prone to stalemate for my taste, in
> particular at low-to-medium tech.

I most definitely missed land units.

(Snip)
..
>
> > 5) Banks are way to juicy of a target, defense is all but impossible,
> > "improve" would have helped (you can move bars around somewhat then)
>
> Agreed. A tactical strike on a sector should be possible, with
> appropriate effects. But the effect of bombing bars is permanent.
> That's wrong.

The 'v' sectors (Trading Posts) seem to be a plausible way of avoiding the
permanent effect of bombing bars without enabling superbar option.
..
Thistle

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Mackubin" <mmackubin@cfl.rr.com> writes:

>> > 5) Banks are way to juicy of a target, defense is all but impossible,
>> > "improve" would have helped (you can move bars around somewhat then)
>>
>> Agreed. A tactical strike on a sector should be possible, with
>> appropriate effects. But the effect of bombing bars is permanent.
>> That's wrong.
>
> The 'v' sectors (Trading Posts) seem to be a plausible way of avoiding the
> permanent effect of bombing bars without enabling superbar option.

They place a strong emphasis on maximizing cm production, hence iron
production. With default `fairland' resources, this leads to a
cramped country setup (no space for highways), and can lead to a fair
bit of micromanagement.

Don't tell me I don't need space for highways because of
infrastructure.

What's wrong with SUPER_BARS again?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>
> * Need for advance planning. You can't just have an instant carrier.
> If you catch somebody where he's weak, you get some time to exploit
> it. Same if you destroy his local assets. Too bad sectors, in
> particular fortresses, are still instant. I guess this is another
> contribution to stalemate. Should fortress construction take much
> more work?
>

I do believe fortresses are very powerful and should take much more
work to build. I would like to see forts take more than one update
to build even in a stock game. That makes you hold the ground
and defend it while the powerful fortress is built. However, this might
increase a tendency towards stalemate.

>
> Your thoughts on avail rollover? In my experience, it does succeed at
> reducing certain kind of micromanagement. I rarely bothered to get
> work exactly right, as extra work isn't lost. But there are some
> strange effects.
>

These strange effects need to be discussed and possibly addressed.

> Sectors that don't use up work (fortresses!) tend to rebound from
> heavy damage. Sure, stored work is damaged, too, but sector
> construction takes so little work that a little rollover can make a
> big difference.
>

Increased work for forts would help here.

>
> On stalemate. I believe Retro had a strong tendency towards tactical
> stalemate.
>

I think this was the intent of the deity - make continents impossible to
roll and then make tech very fast so that the game becomes a nuke-off.

> Consider Tormalin. It took *three* countries almost all game to wipe
> him out! He fought like a lion (kudos!), but he was fodder (no insult
> intended, we all started there). Now, Retro is a clear improvement
> over the usual `log in and your country is gone' fodder experience.
> But isn't it a bit too much?
>
> Did anybody mount a successful conventional attack against a
> competently defended start island?
>
> If I'm right on Retro favouring stalemate, why is it that way?
>

See above

>
> Random things not mentioned otherwhere in this thread yet:
>
> * Disabling `scuttle' was a really bad idea.
>

Agreed!

Tom
(aka Draenor, Ski)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>
> I think this was the intent of the deity - make continents impossible to
> roll and then make tech very fast so that the game becomes a nuke-off.
>
> > Consider Tormalin. It took *three* countries almost all game to wipe
> > him out! He fought like a lion (kudos!), but he was fodder (no insult
> > intended, we all started there). Now, Retro is a clear improvement
> > over the usual `log in and your country is gone' fodder experience.
> > But isn't it a bit too much?
> >
> > Did anybody mount a successful conventional attack against a
> > competently defended start island?
> >
> > If I'm right on Retro favouring stalemate, why is it that way?
> >


Aridon lost his home island in about 2 updates. and all his islands in
about 4 updates. He was not nuked. At one stage he had close to 200
sectors, so you could not say he was incompetent. Wonderland did not
last long either, and I think he had 20+ forts.

There were other small islands that were taken conventionally despite
being fortified.

You just have to capture some fortresses intact and use them against
the original owner.

I don't think they were too strong at all.

Slow fortress build is not a bad idea though. Stops you building a
100% fort on newly captured territory, but that was almost impossible
in Retro anyway. Forces you to capture enemy forts intact if you want
to use them.

It is more illogical that 0% forts can't be paradropped.

Wahbit

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

wahbit <wahbit2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Aridon lost his home island in about 2 updates. and all his islands in
> about 4 updates. He was not nuked. At one stage he had close to 200
> sectors, so you could not say he was incompetent. Wonderland did not
> last long either, and I think he had 20+ forts.

Wonderland, who replaced me, obviously was a complete fodder, because
the country had some huge defensive potential.

> Wahbit

--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: romm@empire.tau.ac.il http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il/
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Roman M. Parparov" <romm@empire.tau.ac.il> wrote in message
news:ccgeso$8sp$1@news.iucc.ac.il...
> wahbit <wahbit2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Aridon lost his home island in about 2 updates. and all his islands in
> > about 4 updates. He was not nuked. At one stage he had close to 200
> > sectors, so you could not say he was incompetent. Wonderland did not
> > last long either, and I think he had 20+ forts.
>
> Wonderland, who replaced me, obviously was a complete fodder, because
> the country had some huge defensive potential.
>
> > Wahbit
>
> --
> Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
> Email: romm@empire.tau.ac.il http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il/
> Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
> weather forecasters.
> -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann
>

Wonderland did not put up a fight. He had the resources to make our
invasions
much more difficult. (BlackBox and Pern).

Yet I agree with Wahbit. The large starting islands, lack of land units, and
inability to
paradrop forts made it very difficult to take over a start island from a
fighting, competent
defender.

BlackBox pretty much annihlated the only bank US Madison had in one update,
yet because of the
lack of of units, low ETU rate and his forts we could not immediately roll
him over.

Savoia was another good example, he had Roman and TZIA attacking him in the
early game,
yet he repulsed them both. Maybe it was his extra large C.O.C.K.

Thistle