| |
You must sign in to post. | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 12, 2009 @ 5:36pm |
|---|
 ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | Let's take another look at the last position.
Blue's plan is to defend Purple's position while taking either the Red or the Orange home planets. If he can capture the Red planet, his team will have secured the left side of the field. If he captures the Orange planet, they will secure the bottom half of the field. In either case, he is prepared to cede the Blue planet to either Orange or Red. The Blue planet is not worth defending as planets cannot support themselves effectively along the field's long diagonal.
Whatever force he sends to defend Purple must be in proportion to the forces Red/Orange send in to attack. If Blue immediately sends 100% into the Purple corner, he cedes his planet to the enemy, who captures it with a minimal force. In that situation, Red/Orange control three home planets in the corners, while Blue/Purple control less territory and have their forces poorly positioned for attack. So, then, Blue must capture either the Red or Orange planet, but he cannot take them both.
Remember the First Law of Galcon: when you have an advantage in production, defend your position and do not move! In this position, it is Red/Orange who is forced to move, not Blue/Purple. By moving "out of turn," you only give your opponent more options. Red/Orange is "on the clock," and must achieve some parity in territory very shortly, lest their forces are overwhelmed by Blue/Purple's advantage in production.
If both Red and Orange launch 100% (blunder,) the Purple position is indefensible and must be abandoned. The Blue forces, taking the longest route, cannot arrive in time to reinforce it. In that situation, Blue switches to Plan B and captures the Red and Orange home planets, securing a strong positional advantage. The Purple force maintains its position (they die at their post,) as it is churning out ships right until the moment of impact.
Blue, then, will attack whichever planet leaves itself weakest, but capture it with only enough force necessary, as he must still have enough ships to defend his partner.
Red/Orange must attack Purple, as the weakness is in that corner. A combined attack against Blue (not weak) loses. Red/Orange must take the Purple position while maintaining one other home planet. If Blue cedes his planet by making a strong attack, Red/Orange will be forced to take it, regardless of any positional disadvantage. If Blue splits his forces to attack both enemy home planets, Red/Orange will have to work on securing Purple's planet field and Blue's abandoned position.
While the above example is not intended to exhaust all attacking/defending options, it should provide some idea of how the Galcon forces move around the board and how players (should) frame their objectives.
I know this all seems a bit formalized compared to the wild "Smash & Grab" tactics which are gaining popularity, and I will be addressing that sort of thing in my next post. | | The Planets :: Jun 13, 2009 @ 10:18am |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | There are five different sizes of planets, but for our analysis, we will put them into three groups.
Everyone starts with a Giant planet as their home planet. There are several others sprinkled around the board, but very few and they are usually expensive. These planets produce 120 ships per minute, or 2/sec.
The Large and Medium planets produce 100 and 80 ships a minute respectively, or 1 2/3 and 1 1/3 ships per second. To simplify things, we will refer to them both as "Large" planets at 1.5sh/sec.
The two Small planets produce 30 and 20 ships per minute. We'll figure them at .5/sec. The number of ships produced by these planets is very small in relation to the game's duration, so they are best avoided. There are certain tactical benefits to acquiring them, and we will get into that later.
So, if you capture two Large planets when the screen opens, your Production Rate goes from 2 to 5. In 60 seconds, you will have produced 300 ships, plus the 100 you started with, for a total of 400. Your idle opponent will produce 120 ships during this time, for a total of 220. The large planets produce ships fast enough so that there is no reason to try and capture lots of them when the game starts. If you snag one other Giant, your production rate is 50% greater than the other team's. After one minute, your team will have 220 on each home planet, plus 120 from the new Giant, for a total of 560. Your opponents will have a shipcount of 440. This is a winning advantage in the game, so as planets are acquired, ships have to start moving quickly to deal with it. With a Production Rate of 5, that player will create 50 new ships every ten seconds, so there is no time for pausing and thinking things over.post updated on Jun 14, 2009 @ 1:03am | | Opening Play :: Jun 13, 2009 @ 12:19pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | Most new players fail immediately because of their inability to quickly assess the position. They do not know what their teammate is doing and will often act randomly or sit inactive.
Like a game of Bridge, there is no verbal communication between partners. Players MUST share some understanding of how play is going to proceed if they are going to fight in any coordinated manner.
Read the position and have a plan.
The Opening Game of Galcon lasts only briefly. During this phase, players assess their opponents' weaknesses, determine the battlezone, and allocate the appropriate numbers of ships for the conflict. The game then, almost immediately, shifts to the Middle Game, where we have close tactical play and a struggle for position. The End Game occurs when both sides have formed two distinct positions. Very often, they have split the field in half.
When the screen opens, you will take note of FIVE things:
1) Nearby Planets of Opportunity
2) Planets taken by your nearest opponent and what he paid for them.
3) Planets taken by your teammate and his nearest opponent and what they paid for them (if possible.)
4) The location of the Planet Field and available territory.
5) The direction play is to proceed.
In the following position, Red immediately acquires a nearby Giant planet:
Illustration #1
This means:
--Red's position is weak (for the moment.)
--Blue's position will soon be threatened.
--Play will proceed either to the North or the Northwest.
When territory is acquired in the Northwest, play will proceed either to the North or the West, depending on what territory is subsequently acquired by the team playing the NE/SW quadrants. Remember: Force Proceeds Toward Weakness.
Illustration #2
Blue has acquired territory and play proceeds North.
Illustration #3
Purple has acquired territory and play proceeds West.
In assessing the position, the field splits between the halves of greater/lesser acquired territory, or:
Play always proceeds toward the Planet Field.
In the last illustration, Purple wants to hold his position while helping Blue to drive Red off his two planets. This will give them 4 planets to their opponents' 2.
Red blunders by attacking Blue!
Purple blunders by attacking Orange!
Look at the first illustration again. After Red's planet acquisition, we know that play will more than likely proceed toward either the North or the West. In this type of starting position, the planet diagonally opposite his advancing teammate's is STRONG (Orange, in this case.) He knows that play will probably evolve toward sectors away from him, so he has no immediate threat. This gives him greater freedom of movement. He has also preserved his strength by not capturing any territory.
As play evolves in either direction, this player will more than likely cede his position. In Illustration #3, Orange wants to swap positions with Purple. Purple wants to HOLD and help his teammate win the West side of the field. Purple blunders by attacking Orange.
People moving to 2v2 from FFA will frequently commit the error of attacking non-positional planets. Purple will quickly achieve a slight superiority in shipcount over Orange and will mistakenly move in for the kill, thinking that once he conquers Orange, he can send ships North to assist his partner who is struggling with Red's superior position. This is JV Galcon. Players should work in unison the moment the screen opens, supporting their partners right away and fighting for territory they both understand is of strategic value.
Red should be watching for a Purple advance on Orange and be prepared to instantly send support the moment Purple moves a large number of ships off that planet. Likewise, Orange is not to defend his home planet if the two Purple planets suddenly become weak.
Rule: Cede territory to gain more territory, but do not over-extend your position.
So, Orange will swap his planet for Purple's two, but he cannot control all three. If Purple moves off his planets, Red and Orange must send just enough ships to capture them. If Orange can force a swap of planets with Purple, and Red can maintain his position, play will quickly move to the End Game where Red/Orange can easily force a win.
If Purple moves off his planets to attack Orange, successful play proceeds toward the SW. If Red goes off and attacks Blue (blunder,) he misses a crucial opportunity for his team to gain advantage. Orange cannot force a swap of planets (with Purple) by himself, but only needs small assistance from his partner, Red, to accomplish this.
This is just a very basic introduction to the dynamics behind opening play. There are variations, of course and positions can get complicated very quickly. The game starts with a variety of positions as well, and we will be getting to those shortly.post updated on Jun 13, 2009 @ 1:04pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 14, 2009 @ 12:41am |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | To finish looking at the example I posted on Friday, this is the scene so far:
Orange moves
The Red and Blue fleets have reached their Fail Safe points.
The 100% Red fleet will more or less cancel-out Purple's force, so Blue has sent a force of 50+ ships to secure the position after the wipe-out. If Orange gets rattled and goes screaming off to the other side of the board to grab the weak planets, he blunders, and cedes the better half of the board to Blue.
Instead, Orange launches full-out at Purple's planet field.
Blue knows that the Blue/Purple force of 150 isn't going to defeat the combined Red/Orange assault, and he will have to cede the Purple planet field to the enemy; so, he swerves his fleet to the empty Orange home planet:
Blue moves
Blue easily captures Red's home planet with a little less than 20 ships remaining. His home planet, guarded by 25 ships has grown a bit to 35. The main force of 50+ ships arrives pretty much intact on Orange's home planet.
The Red Team has about 100 ships occupying the SW planet group.
Advantage: Blue
Blue is outproducing Red slightly (6 to 5,) which means that Red is forced to move. Any move off the planet group invites a Blue counter-attack. Red's cramped forces can find little play and Blue is positioned to gain more central territory.
Oop... kind of late, so I'll end here.
Era, now that I know about the audible cue, I'll post something to the irc before signing off. | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 16, 2009 @ 12:39am |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | This is a continuation of my 6/11 post. I wanted to emphasize this point again, as this rule is frequently violated. Most experienced players will see this as common knowledge.
You must force movement.
Once you have a strong advantage in territory and position, you must secure that position, regroup, and prepare to fight a defensive battle while your forces replenish. This is because it is always easier to defend a position than to go out and attack. In Galcon, the moment you stop moving, the enemy crashes into you, the ships all cancel-out, and all you're left with are the planets.
If the game starts on even footing with combat evolving into the center of the field, watch your partner's captures and for the moment when you have an advantage in territory. At that point, STOP acquiring any more territory and work on distributing your forces among your planets. The team to regroup first will gain an advantage.
Orange has misread the position and found himself on the weak side of the field. He cedes his minor planets to help Red secure their superior position, but he has lost time. At this point, Blue is forced to move. Only if Purple blunders and diverts forces to take territory on the West side can Red/Orange put pressure on the Blue position. Otherwise, they must consolidate and build strength.
If your team gets a large advantage early on, then your opponents must move in response.
If you grab two large planets, you can just sit there because your production rate has jumped 75%. In 17 seconds your team will have 50 extra ships and a winning advantage. Planets are much easier to defend when they're close together. If you force the other team to attack--especially from a long distance--you have the advantage of seeing exactly what their plan is and you can shuttle ships around to keep the planets safe. Once you have a strong surplus of ships, then you can send over an invasion fleet.
The example I am using is of the Long Start, with teams located at each end. Time and measurements differ for other starts, but this set-up illustrates most clearly the necessity of following this rule.
At the very beginning, if you have four planets and your opponent has only three, you have a clear advantage. If your opponents are together down at the far end of the field, you do not need to send an attack fleet to try and destroy their ships. By not moving, you are forcing them to deplete their forces by capturing new territory. If the only big planet down there is 40 points--and they're forced to take it--it would be at that moment you would send your attack fleet. If their main planets are 8 seconds away, the captured planet will have only produced 12 ships by the time their ships reach it (this calculation works the other way, too. If you are defending against a force located down at the far end, capturing any of the three largest planets for 12-15 ships is "safe.")
So, if your opponents on the far end ae only making small advances, there is no cause for alarm. But, if they suddenly double their production by capturing two planets, you are forced to move. In Galcon, you have only two options:
1) Capture more territory
2) Force a swap of positions
If you cannot safely acquire more territory to achieve parity in production, then you are stuck with option #2. There is no "third" option. There is no option where you grab one planet and then launch out to attack. You are ceding your position to the enemy do not capture planets for him before you leave. If the screen opens and you immediately hear two pops go off and there is only one big planet down your way, you are blundering by taking it. You and your partner have to launch all your ships immediately. Every second you wait, your opponents are generating three new ships. If the two planets cost them 30pts. total, and the transit time is 8 seconds, that only gives you an advantage of six ships if you launched immediately. Looking at it another way, you have only 2 seconds to launch, after which you will be outnumbered. This is one of the few times during the game where you have to launch full-out and at 100%.
--You cannot grab any neutral territory.
--If the enemy breaks rank and sends a force outside this line of planets, you cannot engage them.
--If there is a counterstrike against your home planets, you cannot defend them.
--If one of the defending players breaks rank for any reason, you veer your fleet to attack that side.
--If you secure the planet field and your opponent has retreated to a poorer position in the rest of the board, you cannot pursue them until you have a decisive advantage in force.
--You cannot cut out to do your own thing or some secret strategy of yours. You're fighting against the math at this point.
You must adhere to all these restrictions because you are being forced to move. Your opponent has reduced your options and is hoping you commit an error. You are trying to use your advantage in strength to force them to move from their better position.
The further away the enemy is, the more territory they can safely grab. Transit times down the field's long dimension are between 8 and 10 seconds without obstacles. In the above illustration, Team Red has acquired 5 planets (represented here by their production factors.) They are producing 12 ships per second, so if they captured these instantaneously, they would generate 90 to 100 ships before Team Blue makes it down to the end. If Red paid close to this number to capture them, then there will be parity in shipcount when Blue arrives. Fortunately for Blue, Red cannot capture them all instantaneously, so this number will be a bit lower.
If your partner is diagonally across from you and captures a field of large planets, he is forcing you to move. You must move a large force down there immediately to replace his depleted forces. You cannot capture a smaller amount of territory in your corner, as planets cannot support themselves across the field's long diagonal.
In FFA, you can secure an inferior position and hang back while the others fight it out and you build strength. There is no such luxury in 2v2. As a general rule, if you have an advantage in strength and your opponents have an advantage in territory, it is you who is being forced to move.
The most important restriction is not to waste any force on neutral territory en route. If you launch immediately and your partner stops for snacks on the way, your force will be wiped-out on impact and the enemy will have a valuable moment to regroup. Reinforcements from whatever planets you have left on the board will be insufficient.
Try not to focus both fleets onto one target planet, as this is easier to defend. Also, if you are down in strength, there is no opportunity for eeking out a tactical advantage by battling from planet to planet. Keep your forces split, attacking near the ends and the bigger planets, yet not so far away that you cannot support your partner. Move toward the middle of the planet field and try to split the enemy position. While the ships are on their way, gear down to a fighting ratio of 25% or 50%. Do NOT leave the percentameter on 100% for any sort of close combat... especially in this situation.
The great thing about Galcon is that the numbers do work, provided you act quickly.post updated on Jun 16, 2009 @ 11:57am | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 17, 2009 @ 10:45am |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | Thank you everyone for your support.
Back to space gaming.
Available Planets
Yoko Ikeno
In the last post we looked at the relationship between transit times and production rates and found a simple formula for determining what are "safe" planets for capture.
That formula is:
Cs = P X T
The "Safe Cost" of the planet (so that you retain shipcount against any immediate enemy attack) is equal to the planet's production rate multiplied by the transit time in seconds. The ships fly a bit slower than 1cm/sec, so, a clean shot down the board in the diamond start (7cm) is about 9 seconds, planet to planet. With a few small obstacles, it's 10. That means you can safely capture a gigantic planet for 20 points (2x10) or one of the two Large planets for 15 (1.5x10) at that distance. The direct planet to planet distance across the short side of the board is 3 to 4 seconds, about 5 seconds in the rhombus start.
So, when the screen opens, the first thing we do is look for the number of planets available to our team. If the enemy has a considerable advantage, then we must force a swap of positions.
The game's program forces movement by unequally distributing available planets in the starting position. Very often, 2 or 3 players have no large planets available to them, and so, must rapidly redistribute their forces to the evolving battlezone. This race against the clock is a phase of the game in which the new players frequently miscalculate, and the game punishes those who deploy their forces conservatively.
It's clear that the program does not want players just sitting around, which is why the starting positions are designed the way they are. It is also why the program frequently starts opposing players across the short dimension of the field from one another. If your opponent grabs a planet, and you don't, you are forced to move immediately or face rapid destruction.
The game plays well provided you make very accurate moves during the first 5 seconds of the game. Most games are won or lost during this period.
I think this is a problem for several reasons.
First, it discourages new players from getting involved in Galcon, as they get wiped out too quickly. Cautious gameplay is severely punished. Second, because of the very close mathematical tolerances required for victory, players are more involved with number counting than they are with strategy and tactics. Third, the forces do not deploy in a normal manner, or a manner similar to the retro games which Galcon is trying to simulate. It's kind of like the difference between Sumo wrestling and boxing, or fencing with saber or foil. Sumo wrestling is fine, but most people find boxing more interesting. Fourth, the game tends to reward exaggerated, non-military strategems, such as giant charges, suiciding, massive redeployment and frequent abandoning of your position. There was a reason retro military games were designed to discourage this sort of thing.
So, Galcon is a great game just the way it is. It is certainly the best multi-player game on the iPhone. Any changes would not be making the game necessarily better, as Sumo wrestling is not "better" than boxing. But, changes could be made which would make the game more appealing to a larger number of people while at the same time creating a game which allowed for a bit more leeway for error during the game's initial phase. The games would also last a bit longer.
In the next post, I will try and look at some of these possibilities. Because the game is designed well already, I will only be suggesting small tweaks which can be easily and quickly implemented by the designer. Most of these suggestions have to do with the starting positions.post updated on Jun 17, 2009 @ 2:14pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 18, 2009 @ 12:58am |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | 
Melvin Sokolsky, 1963post updated on Jun 18, 2009 @ 1:06am | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 18, 2009 @ 1:40pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | After looking at the game's mechanics, our discussion on strategy and tactics will take a brief detour as we examine modifications which might improve gameplay. Readers are encouraged to post comments and criticisms in the "IPCRESS" discussion thread and I will try and incorporate responses here in successive posts.
Confronting Galcon
It is obvious that a great many people enjoy Galcon just the way it is and do not favor making any major modifications at all. Of these, a large percentage enjoy the present system for no other reason than the current parameters enable them to win most of the time, and any changes would require their re-learning the game. These people aren't real gamers. Much of modern gaming has been influenced by Real Time Shooters, which take a certain "puzzle" approach to gaming. Game scenarios repeat themselves until the player "cracks" the weakness in the program, and then moves on to the game's next stage. There isn't much in the way of military strategy, except going into the same room over and over and over again until you figure out that the extra ammo is hidden behind the can in the corner and only the flaming bazooka will destroy the flying goblins. These are puzzles and not military strategy games. You crack the puzzle and then you discard the game, as it's worthless. Now you can buy the follow-up version. These people have "cracked" Galcon in a way, as they have found very simple strategies which will give them a high percentage of wins against most players. But eventually, these players will grow tired of using the same @sshat strategy over and over and over again, and after "cracking" Galcon, will most likely move on to the next multi-player game on the iPhone. Unfortunately, their ranks will be filled by newer players adopting the same gameplay tricks.
To those others who wish the game to remain unchanged because they really enjoy how it plays, I say you don't know what you're missing and should seriously consider what possible improvements would look like.
The Legacy of FFA
Most people play Galcon in its FFA version, and the game's parameters clearly suit this. Transitioning to 2v2, we find an entirely different game but with almost identical parameters. Unfortunately, FFA has its limitations, and these get passed on to 2v2.
In the earlier post we saw how very close the game's mathematics play out against the clock and that the set-ups reward highly aggressive, reckless, "blitz" strategies, and punish cautious, conservative players. Much of this is due to the lack of available planets. Once the fighting starts (which is almost immediately,) it is almost suicide to capture any neutral territory as the balance in shipcount is so crucial. Most planets on the field are useless, as the game evolves so quickly, that it is often over before the planet can even replenish itself. After the first ten seconds or so, neutral planets serve mainly as obstacles and just hinder smooth gameplay. The high-priced planets are a legacy of FFA, where the slowly accumulating fleets and delayed starts enable players to eventually take all large and gigantic planets on the field, regardless of cost. In 2v2, gameplay would be dramatically improved by providing more affordable planets and no set-ups where planet fields are disproportionately located closer to one team than the other. Also, set-ups where home planets are completely isolated and lack any options to gain territory should be changed as well.
At its highest level, 2v2 Galcon is mostly an intuitive, haphazard swirling of large masses of ships and has little resemblance to any military strategy game. This is because most of the people playing 2v2 a lot are accomplished players coming from the FFA scene. In FFA, people tend to accumulate a bunch of planets while there is an unsteady truce at the beginning of the game. Then they wait for their forces to replenish so they have lots of ships to start with. Because 2v2 starts (and other parameters, like production rates) are the same as in FFA, the FFA players bring with them their same FFA playing style. But 2v2 is different in several aspects, and they try to force their wild and erratic gameplay onto the game.
One "super strategy" used in the common Diamond and Rhombus starts is where the two teammates tend to converge into a giant mass and then grab every large planet they see, regardless of cost. Then they charge out at 100% and try to play this interference game and delay the opposition while their fleet rapidly replenishes. So, the screen opens and they take four planets, and you launch 100% at them. If your partner launches late, you both lose. Then the screen opens again and they take four planets, and you launch 100% at them. If your partner launches late, you both lose. Then the screen opens again and they take four planets, and you launch 100% at them. If your partner launches late, you both lose.
In another equally fascinating strategy used in the Long Staggered and Split starts, one player will grab a planet and then hold, while the player at the top of the field immediately blitzes his opponent and tries to delay the game until his partner powers-up and crushes his opponent.
Then there's the always-popular Double Blitz At Every Start Strategy.
What's funny, though, is to go through this forum and read all the flame-outs about "Suiciders" and how they "ruin" the FFA game. Huh?? I read these long rants about how ignorant and inconsiderate the "suiciders" are, written by all the Stripes and Blues; but you put the same people in a 2v2 game, and guess what happens? They charge you 100% as soon as the screen opens! Only in 2v2 they call it "Blitzing" instead of "suiciding." How is it that "suiciding" ruins FFA gameplay, but forms the basis of "great" 2v2 games?
But, as I have stated before, this is not so much a problem with the players; because, after all, this sort of thing will work against the majority of people who can't respond with split-second accuracy to the Super Mega Blitz, the Twin Blitz, or the Delay-then-Blitz strategies. It's that the game is programed to encourage this. Also, there is no mechanism preventing it.
The Galcon Starting Positions
There are 7 geometric starting positions. These are the four "Long" starts, where there are planets 7cm apart. The "Short" starts are square-ish and the squashed Diamond is a Rhombus shape with allied players together and close to the sides. The best start for 2v2 is the first pattern, the Long Matched Start.
Aggravating the situation is the iPhone's small screen. Opposing armies come under immediate enemy fire when they "suddenly" appear adjacent to one another. The worst set-ups are the split and staggered Long Starts, which are just two mini 1v1 games. You are too far away to support your partner and the person who blitzes and wins his 1v1 first simply creams the surviving opponent, who is still dueling with your partner. The Diamond and Rhombus starts (the "Spiders in a Bottle" starts) have players all crashing into the center of the field almost immediately with little planning whatsoever.
The locations of the home planets at the start follow the same patterns as in FFA. While I will try and get into their specific characteristics in a later post, it is sufficient to say here that only one pattern perfectly suits 2v2, and that is the "Long Matched" start I have been using in recent illustrations: where teammates are side by side and face opponents across the screen's long dimension.
Deployment
Forces in Galcon do not deploy in the same manner as the reto games it is trying to simulate. Nearly all military strategy games--of any era--allow players the opportunity to enter the battlefield, survey the terrain, capture tactically important locations, prepare a battle plan, and then deploy their troops into combat in a somewhat sensible, coherent fashion. Galcon provides for this as well, only the entire process takes milliseconds:
Do I have Planets?
No: Order full-scale assault.
Yes: Accumulate and defend against full-scale assault, then launch full-scale assault.
Clearly, something is wrong here.
The Two Styles of Play
Interest in 2v2 has been growing in response to certain deficiencies in the original design of FFA. FFA players come here and notice that the game is a little different, and they like it. Ironically, the FFA players bring with them that same aggressive, "blitzing" style to 2v2--the same things which bored them out of FFA in the first place. I have played hundreds of 2v2 games and am familiar with all the starting strategies which revolve around immediate assault with 100% deployment, and frankly, I'm not very impressed. The gameplay is sloppy, mostly intuitive, and very simplistic. Winning strategies revolve around merely overwhelming your opponent with a giant charge as soon as the screen opens. Most games are essentially over after about 10 seconds.
It seems that there are two types of 2v2 players out there. The first group is the high-rankng FFA crowd which plays in the manner I have just described. When the Player List shows me in a room with three striped players, I just know that the game is going to be super-fast and stupid. However, there are other devoted 2v2 players who play with a more sensible style. In all my playing of 2v2, I have had one--one--"perfect game." This was last week I was in a room with three experienced players playing on the Long Matched starting pattern. The screen opened up and each side took a large planet. Since no one had a clear attacking advantage, there was a pause in play before the other team took a fourth planet. Then I captured a large 24 point planet. Even though we were now at a slight deficit in shipcount, the opposing team decided to take a similarly costly planet in response (rather than staging and all-out assault.) Play slowly and methodically moved toward the center of the field, each side carefully matching the other in planet acquisitions. A defined "front" was formed and each team had plenty of ships to work with. Players retreated to more defensible positions and advanced against weaker points in the frontline. I managed to turn their left flank with a few aerial assaults while my teammate held the other side of the line and did not attack. Once the enemy ranks were broken, there was some tactical swirling around--but only after all of that did we muster our forces for the final charge, winning the game. It was a great match and very fun to play. It was a military strategy game in the classic style. Players were counting planets, making sensible advances, and defending positions rather than trying to simply overpower their opponents with brute force and repeated suicide attacks. Now, that's the way I prefer to play the game. If you're really into the 10-second Smash & Grab style, then we have a difference of opinion and that's that. If the consensus of the Galcon Community is that Smash & Grab and FFA buffoonery should define 2v2 play, then so be it. You can just ignore what I have to say and keep the game unchanged. But if people here really do want a game which closely resembles "military strategy games," then they should think about making some intelligent suggestions to the game's designer. It's a rare opportunity when gamers can actually test games and then make recommendations to have the game tweaked in certain ways. Players should try and consider what the game could be like with a few modifications to the game's mechanics.
So, without further ado, here is my list of suggestions to improve 2v2 gameplay:
Essential Modifications
1. Long Matched starting position for every game.
2. More available planets, more evenly distributed.
3. Troop strength numbers visible to all players.
4. Three sizes of planets with production rates of 2/1.5/1.
Minor Modifications
5. Small "tactical planets" which have no cost, but do not produce ships.
6. 1cm control strip along the bottom. This would produce a more square field, which is fine (the shape would be more of a benefit for FFA, actually.)
7. The calculations for planet captures should be made instantly, rather than the delayed "swarm of buzzing bees" effect.
8. Fewer planets overall, no "obstacle planets."
9. Solid-colored backgrounds.
10. The screen opens and then there is a four-second countdown to the start.
11. With the control strip, we can now have a Program Button: 1) Tap "Program," 2) tap firing planets and target planet, 3) Tap "Program" again to fire.
12. Better feature for consolidating forces: 1) Tap all planets you want involved, "selecting them," 2) Then tap another one of these planets again and have the ships shuttle to it. This eliminates the clumsy swiping gesture to do the same thing.
Modification #13 is not entirely necessary for 2v2, but is essential for "fixing" FFA (somewhat.) I will describe this in my next post.
Thank you for reading this thread and for all your support. Let's stop talking about "winning" and "losing" for a little while and consider how the game is played.post updated on Jun 18, 2009 @ 1:50pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 18, 2009 @ 7:33pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | I'm not going to talk much about FFA, but there is one modification I am suggesting for 2v2 which would greatly improve gameplay in "Classic Galcon."
Nearly all military strategy games include various opportunities for defense. A force holding a hill can repel a much larger force charging up the hill. Forces can take up defensive positions behind rivers, in forests, or in villages. Even troops which are standing still and defending usually cannot be overrun by an equal force. FFA needs a feature such as this as too many combatants are compelled to "fight to the death" when they shouldn't and the suiciders can too easily disrupt gameplay.
Since Galcon has no terrain features to provide defense, my suggestion is to create Fortified Planets. Each Home planet is a fortress planet and is different from other planets in that the number of ships occupying it effectively double against enemy assault. So, if a Home Planet is being manned by 50 ships, it requires 101 ships to take it. At that point, the attacker occupies the fortress planet. Fortified Planets should have a low production rate, such as 1.0 to prevent people from just sitting there too long and accumulating ships (players have to be forced to acquire territory.)
The Fortified Planets will stop the suiciding and other @sshat strategems. It will also keep weaker players alive for a little longer, helping to keep gameplay in balance. Also, people will not be so quick to abandon their starting positions. Since fortified planets require fewer ships to defend them, this frees more ships for battle, so it is in the interest of the player to hang on to their home planet.
There could be Neutral Fortified Planets as well.post updated on Jun 18, 2009 @ 7:38pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 19, 2009 @ 12:04pm |
|---|
 gammatigerx
Joined: Sep 15, 2008
Posts: 807
Location: Maryland | Very interesting idea, but here's a thought I had. The fortified planet is good, but it won't really help you keep your production up, or stop suiciders, and here's why. It's only good for one planet. If someone suicides you, they can just attack every single other planet of yours, and that fortified planet does nothing unless you retreat all your forces to it. But, at that point they can just not attack that last planet until they have enough forces from the increased production to just kill you outright. Also, the low production of the fortified planet gives you no real reason to capture it. I mean, why waste 2x the number of ships on a planet that is going to give you low production as a result? Best to just let someone sit there weak until you kill off everyone else, or can easily take them.
Maybe instead, each planet could have a "Defense Rating" based on its size. Specks would have a defense rating of 1.0, on up to the largest planets that would have a defense rating of 1.5. Basically, on a 1.0 planet 1 attacking ship = 1 defending ship. On a 1.5, 1 defending ship = 1.5 attacking ships. So, 20 ships on a large planet could defend an attack of up to 30 ships. The only problem is that this increases the power of larger planets even more. Maybe the production gap from smaller to larger planets could be lessened. That would keep this change from making the larger planets too overpowered, yet still add IP's idea of defensive positions being more powerful (which they almost always are in war). Of course, the 1.0-1.5 could be adjusted however you think would work best (1.25-2.0, 1.25-1.5, etc.) | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 19, 2009 @ 12:47pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | The fortified planet prevents the @sstard across the short side of the board from launching 100% at you every time the screen opens. It is not a cure-all for poor gamesmanship, as anyone determined to be a jerk and ruin the game for everyone will eventually find a way of doing so. The fortified planet should be implemented along with other changes in the game's design as well.
If your closest opponent grabs a large planet and you have no opportunities, then you are in the position of being immediately overrun. The FP will give you a little time, during which your opponent will be forced to focus attention on other players who are also increasing production.
Yes, your immediate opponent can keep you pinned down and challenge any attempt you make to gain territory, but you'll still be in the game, and that's the whole point. In such a scenario, the other two players will be developing faster, and the aggressive player across from you will very shortly be forced to abandon his strategy of keeping you locked in the fort forever.
Assigning defensive factors to all planets would complicate the game's mathematics and I am a little reluctant to support such a concept. | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 20, 2009 @ 1:10pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | My hopes of finding ONE decent multi-player game on the iPhone are rapidly dwindling. 3/4p Galcon is simply unplayable as the vast majority of players merely accumulate planets and then just sit around forever, not knowing what to do and just waiting for someone else to move first. When there IS movement, weak players are unable to work together to defeat large threats, they act independently and unpredictably, moving at 100% with no other strategy than to simply blitz their opponents and overwhelm them with numbers. There's nothing very satisfying about the game. It's short, annoying, clumsy, and I don't play it.
2v2 was my last hope, but the @sshats have been doing their best to ruin this game as well. It seems my posts have had little influence on gameplay. While there are a number of intelligent players who play strategically, make proportional advances, and defend good positions, the vast number still prefer stomping around the board with giant fleets, using childish "team-up" smash & grab tactics and repeated blitz attacks. I can play that way, too. It's not as if these tactics are any big secret. I can be an @sshat and play short, boring, stupid 2v2 matches. I should probably be posting advice here on "How To Play Like A Tard."
So, it's just an endless battle between the Tards and the Noobs, with the Tards instantly overpowering the new players every game until the noobs "figure out" how to play like jerks as well. Then everyone gets bored with the game and leaves. My guess is that the turnover of Galcon players is rather high. There's no sense in sticking with a game which never improves or becomes more interesting. I drop by the App Store regularly to check out the latest multi-player games, but there hasn't been very much lately. As soon as I do find something, I'm immediately deleting Galcon from my iPhone.post updated on Jun 20, 2009 @ 1:12pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 2:23am |
|---|
 the_musician
Joined: Apr 2, 2009
Posts: 559
Location: the.musician.is.in (at)g | Content removed by Author. Re posted here:
http://www.galcon.com/forums/14/15/2869/?cur=20#43346post updated on Aug 31, 2010 @ 1:40pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 11:08am |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | pwn.era wrote:
As for changing others' gameplay, nearly every single person plays to win, or they should. Thus, whatever is the optimal way to win a 2v2 is used.
[Insert rollseyessmiley HERE]
Era, there are GOOD 2v2 players out there. I mean, really good players. Last night, I played a run of 30 games with three of them. THEY play with an "optimal" style. You and your FFA friends do not.
Here is an example of your "style" of play:
The two of us have secured 5 planets. Our opponents have rallied their forces for a major assault down your side of the field. Since we hold the superior position, I am planning to HOLD against the assault. They have made fewer captures than us and probably have an advantage in strength, but our planet field is close together and easy to defend.
It is NOT a complicated position, and when I am teamed with someone who understands the dynamics of the game they will sit there and take the punch--as they're supposed to.
But, this is what YOU do:
Using your FFA "intuition," you go tearing down the long side of the field to take the weak enemy planets, split our forces, and secure the inferior position: leaving me to struggle against the enemy attack with depleted defenses. Now, you may race around the far side at 100% and grab the Red and Orange planets and then circle back with your 100% Super Punch to try and bail me out, but chances are you're going to have a tough time of it. But even if you DO "win," it was hardly an "optimal" strategy.
We partnered together for a few games the other day, and most of the time I hadn't the faintest idea what you were up to. You were all over the board. As soon as we grabbed a good position, you charged out of it at 100% to grab two crummy planets across the field, and then race around to recapture some planets you just lost because you left them with no defenders. It's like you're playing by yourself in some frantic FFA scramble while I have to try and GUESS what you're doing while fighting the enemy at the same time. Yeah, you won a bunch of games, but they were all sh__ty games as far as I'm concerned. Even the ones I won with you as a partner. Just a randomized mess with you chasing after the closest target of opportunity at every move. It's not FFA--it's a team game. It's more enjoyable to play with a player who understands the common goal the two of you are fighting for and then work together to successfully implement that plan.
You think playing the game like it was FFA is more "fun?" That's fine. Play that way. Instead of ranking 2v2, they should create a special Space Tard section for the FFAers who like to "do their own thing," making a zillion swipes to move their forces haphazardly around the field. And then they can create a section for genuine TEAM play for players who are more interested in working together.post updated on Jun 21, 2009 @ 11:14am | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 11:46am |
|---|
the_musician
Joined: Apr 2, 2009
Posts: 559
Location: the.musician.is.in (at)g | Content removed by Author. Re posted here:
http://www.galcon.com/forums/14/15/2869/?cur=20#43348post updated on Aug 31, 2010 @ 1:51pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 1:00pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | Periwink wrote:
I honestly still don't understand your point of view here.
Then read my posts again and try to understand what I'm saying. I don't debate issues with people who begin by saying they "don't understand" what we're talking about.
And you were asking yourself why people were always blitzing in 2v2? Because it is ALWAYS the best strategy to do; in every single situation.
No, it is not.
Here is a very simple opening position I posted earlier.
Blue=ipcress
Purple=periwink
Red/Orange=FFA Tards
Play moves LEFT, because THAT'S where the planets are. That's not "My Strategy," that's the way the game is played. As my partner, you should be thinking about helping me force Red off his two planets so we can secure that half of the field. But, do you do this? No. Of course not. Instead of playing for a positional advantage, you charge 100% at Orange, because he's closest and you have a tiny advantage in strength. In 5 seconds, the two of you wipe-out each other's ships and you're furiously swiping single ships at the Orange player.
Meanwhile, Captain Stupid, playing Red, blunders and charges 100% at my planet (Blue.) Within seconds, WE are both wiped-out, and he's dribbling single ships at me. Now it's a contest to see who is the best Swiper (wheeee!) Since you blitzed your opponent a few seconds earlier, you defeat Orange just as Red is finishing me off, and you send a couple of ships North to clinch the game. You win with your Blitz Strategy. But it was a sh__ty game. You like that style of play? Great. You should be playing Rock-Paper-Scissors or Candy Land instead of strategy games. Big Pants People don't waste their time with this sort of nonsense and it's exactly this type of @sshat gameplay which is driving people away from Galcon.
Continually trying to force a battle of attrition is the signature of a noob in any strategy game. Novice chess players always swap pieces against stronger opponents, thinking they stand a better chance of gaining an advantage if they keep simplifying the position. They are wrong. The better player wins anyway. The noob just forces him to play a sh__ty game, that's all.post updated on Jun 21, 2009 @ 1:03pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 1:32pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | The Musician wrote:
What Era did in this situation makes total sense to me. Era is looking at a combined super punch, where 2 players each are sending 100% to both of his planets. The ONLY way to survive that kind of attack is to move. period. Era could have waited and absorbed the punch, but only if you were to send 100% of all YOUR forces to him as support. Which might be what you had planned to do... but in all of my games played, when the two teams send everything they have into 1 or 2 planets, the one on the attack ends up winning because they have the momentum and get to decide the best targets to try for.
You're wrong. In Free For All your main objective is to keep moving, dodge attacks, and grab planets as cheaply as possible. There is no "front" and strategic objectives are difficult to determine with everything swirling around. In this example, I have donated the bulk of my fleet to Purple so he can defend against the Super Punch. When he takes these ships for an excursion into Never Never Land, he leaves me (with the superior position) at a huge disadvantage. Purple has the longer distance to travel. By the time he makes it all the way to the far corner of the field, I have been completely wiped-out. Red now controls FOUR planets and Era has crapolla. Red/Orange have managed to successfully swap their weak position for the better one at the bottom of the field. Now Era has to try and fight his way back to where he started from. It's doubtful that he can make it, but whether he does or not isn't the point. This is not the "optimal" way of handling the situation. This is the goofy FFA way of doing things.
There is no advantage to "momentum," only numbers. Even IF Purple loses a planet to the Super Punch, we are still even in territory and Red/Orange must travel a longer distance to reinforce their captured planet. My Blue planets are right there with a huge positional advantage.
I played this exact same position this morning with Die Backstabbers Die as my partner. Our opponents had paused for just a little too long before organizing their attack, so I knew we had enough ships to hold the fort. But, DBD breaks rank, attacks the crummy position downfield, I get annihilated, and the enemy just sits on their 5-3 planet superiority while DBD launches a pathetic attempt to regain the position he sacrificed a few moments ago. | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 1:39pm |
|---|
the_musician
Joined: Apr 2, 2009
Posts: 559
Location: the.musician.is.in (at)g | Content removed by Author. Re posted here:
http://www.galcon.com/forums/14/15/2869/?cur=20#43350post updated on Aug 31, 2010 @ 1:58pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 1:53pm |
|---|
the_musician
Joined: Apr 2, 2009
Posts: 559
Location: the.musician.is.in (at)g | Content removed by Author. post updated on Aug 31, 2010 @ 2:00pm | | Re: Planet IPCRESS :: Jun 21, 2009 @ 2:08pm |
|---|
ipcress
Joined: Feb 7, 2009
Posts: 852
Location: IPCRESSBlog.com | The Musician wrote:
Periwink is purple, you are blue. You and orange are the weakest players on the board. If you and purple team up against red, that leaves orange able to sweep up the remains and win.
You are wrong.
Red and Purple just captured. They are down in ships. For about 5-7 seconds, Blue and Orange have the strongest forces on the field. Play moves toward the weaker side, which is the LEFT.
Blue CEDES his planet, which is positionally weak. If Red moves Right (toward the positionally WEAK side of the field) he blunders. Blue requires support from Purple, but this does NOT mean Purple is to send 50 or 75 ships to help secure the Red planets. He must send just enough to get the job done. This means using 25% on the percentameter.
Of course, Orange/Red are trying to do the same thing in the lower part of the field. Whoever captures with excessive force will be at a disadvantage because they will have to send those same ships back to try and regain the territory they just lost.post updated on Jun 21, 2009 @ 3:09pm |
You must sign in to post. |
|
