arw@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Paul Hanson) (05/31/91)
First : following Peter's guidelines on what he would like to hear about :
1) Multi-player games - I think these are done very well. I like the method of
doing turns. The only changes I would make, is in how things are processed
at end of turn. Most of the time, we have no problem, although occasionally
when playing on a network, it does not register a turn being done (when
selecting "End Turn". The only solution is to close and reopen the game).
2) Message Passing... This is an interesting thought. I would consider it more
novelty, than a needed feature, but I like the idea. I am not sure how I
would implement this. Perhaps have a menu option which is "Send Message".
Then, be prompted by a dialog box which players to send the message to, and
then finally type the message. Have this message be put into the "messages"
window of the other player at the start of the next turn.
3) Battles...
i) Definitely add a retreat option (if fuel allows it)
ii) Somewhat related to this, I think the option to "alter course" while in
transit somewhere would be a good idea. In other words, if I am halfway
to "Hobbes" with my colony ship when "Hobbes" is taken over by the
enemy, I would like to make my Colony ship turn around or divert to
another star (once again, if fuel allows).
4) Other ideas... (Uh oh... a trekkie)...
i) Cloaking - This would burn fuel at a rate of 1 or 2 units per turn, and
would allow you to scout out a star, owned by the enemy, without the
enemy knowing you were there. This could let you find out what the
enemies defenses are like. Once the fuel ran out, so would the cloaking.
Perhaps this could be another type of technology... the higher the level,
the longer you can stay cloaked. Or, perhaps the lower the level, the
higher the chance of being discovered while you are cloaked. Just a
thought.
Just my opinions....
Paul
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (06/01/91)
You know, I've been playing this for almost six months now, and outside of
better and better computer oponent strategies, there's just not much I'd
add.
Three quick suggestions for the interface, however:
a) If there was some way to better differentiate between unexplored and
explored-but-not-inhabited non-colonized planets on a B&W screen, that
would be a great help. (I have a color screen now, so not a biggie for
me.)
b) When running through the Explored Planets list (which contains the
vitals for every planet you know about), it would be nice to be able to
double-click on the planet on the list, and have the map automatically
"go to" (i.e., center) on that planet -- much like what the Fleet list
is able to do. (This isn't in 1.1 -- I haven't checked to see if it's
contained in later revisions):
c) If there were a shortcut to align the amount of money spent on a
planet being terraformed with the "black bar" which shows the minimum
money to be spent on the planet -- a one-stroke/click way to align them
-- I'd love it. Even better would be a way to put a planet's spending
so that the budget for that planet stayed aligned with that bar as it
shrank.
A great game which I've gotten many hours of pleasure from. Whatever you
add, I'm sure the upgrade fee will be well worth it. I look forward to
paying it!
"I hope the money men don't find out that I'd pay
them to let me do this."
-- David Lean
---
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
plague@milton.u.washington.edu (Jack Brown) (06/01/91)
I just read the post about setting percentage casualty retreat thresholds for your fleets. I think this would make retreats possible without changing the basic flavor of the game and I wholeheartedly support this one. -- Jack Brown aka plague@milton.u.washington.edu Make sure the milton part is in there. Else it goes to another system where I won't see it for months...
conty@cbnewsl.att.com (The Conty) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.170041.9305@tc.fluke.COM>, moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) writes: > b) When running through the Explored Planets list (which contains the > vitals for every planet you know about), it would be nice to be able to > double-click on the planet on the list, and have the map automatically > "go to" (i.e., center) on that planet -- much like what the Fleet list > is able to do. (This isn't in 1.1 -- I haven't checked to see if it's > contained in later revisions): It isn't in 1.1.2, and it should be. > c) If there were a shortcut to align the amount of money spent on a > planet being terraformed with the "black bar" which shows the minimum > money to be spent on the planet -- a one-stroke/click way to align them > -- I'd love it. Even better would be a way to put a planet's spending > so that the budget for that planet stayed aligned with that bar as it > shrank. Yes! Those "unspent ship money" bucks can add up to a big figure when you're playing a big galaxy. Aslo, you could add a "planet X is on the green" message to the reports window. -- E n r i q u e C o n t y The Amazing Man-With-No-Life jester@ihlpl.att.com
moore@tc.fluke.COM (Matt Moore) (06/01/91)
A) Better and better computer opponents, of course. B) It would be nice to know, and be able to adjust, the discount that the "Ingenious" computer opponents are given on the money and metal prices of ships and research. C) Lack of retreat from battles is not a problem for me: it adds a major element of uncertainty of the game, which is OK, because the game is all about long range planning in the face of uncertainty. D) A battle report half way between the present brief report and the full "Graphic Battles" would be nice. I find myself wanting to know how many ships and satellites the enemy had, of each type. Also, its a pain to pore over the pictures of ships in the "Create New Ship Type" dialogue looking for pictures to match to figure out range and speed; putting in all 4 (or even all 5) numbers about a ship would be nice. It would also be neat to know if any colony ships were there, and if any were killed. Here is a for instance battle report, which would show up in the reports window: "Your Fleet 7 destroyed at Diphda. You lasted two rounds. You had 3 (4/4/8/3) ships. You have 0 left. Player 4 had 6 (6/4/0/0) satellites; he has at least 5 left. Player 4 had 1 (4/4/7/4) ship; he has at least 1 left." Or perhaps you could use a tabular format, for instance: "Your Fleet 7 destroyed at Diphda. The battle lasted two rounds. Your Ships #in #left (4/4/8/3) 3 0 Enemy Ships #in #left (6/4/0/0) 6 5 (4/4/7/4) 1 1" Colony ships could be indicated by square brackets instead of parens, or some such convention. E) Just out of curiosity, what happens if fleets from two or more different players arrive a yet another player's planet at the same time? Do the invading fleets whomp each other first? Or do they cooperate to whomp the defending fleet before fighting over the spoils? Or does each fleet pick another one to blast at random? Or do they allocate their fire equally over all the enemy fleets? Or proportionally? Or does the program just crash? Maybe the easiest solution would be to treat this situation as a series of individual arrivals, and two-player battles. Ownership of the planet might change hands several times in the same turn. This situation has never arisen for me, but inquiring minds want to know. Matt Moore John Fluke Mfg. Co.
ericl@akbar.cac.washington.edu (Eric Lundquist) (06/01/91)
One main question that I've always had is what happens to all that good scrap metal that results from a major fleet battle? It'd be nice if you could get 20-50% salvage value out of it. Also, what happens to the 200,000 units of metal that player #1 (or whoever) has when they lose their last planet? You should be able to recover this. It IS nice that SH is easy to learn, but it could have an easy and an advanced setting... I'd like two kinds of shields, an ablative armor like it currently is, (that gets weaker during the course of the battle, and "sheilds" that get fully recharged at the end of EACH ROUND, making ships with high "shield" tech ratings fairly immune to wimpy weapon techs. At least here on Earth, you can't just strip ALL the oil out in one fell swoop, you can always get more oil out, it just gets more and more expensive per barrel. I'd like metal to be more like this. Maybe don't even tell us how much metal there is, just a unit cost to mine that goes up at a rate determined by each planet. How about a "terraforming" tech that makes it cheaper to terraform worlds? Eric Lundquist ericl@cac.washington.edu
vergis@cs.umn.edu (Anastasios Vergis) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.185759.24553@tc.fluke.COM> moore@tc.fluke.COM (Matt Moore) writes: > > A) Better and better computer opponents, of course. YES!! Please allocate most of your efforts to this, it is well worth it. Better graphics and stuff is just the icing on the cake. > C) Lack of retreat from battles is not a problem for me: it adds a major >element of uncertainty of the game, which is OK, because the game is all >about long range planning in the face of uncertainty. > I agree. People who want to retreat from battles, should not forget that it takes years to prepare a jump through hyperpace! If you really want to find out about the enemy defences, well, send a small force there first. This adds to the complexity of the game. Option to retreat would make it much easier. There is also the question of how well the computer opponents will use it. Ditto for the "cloaking" option to allow you to "explore" the enemy defences undetected (then it is only fair to allow "cloaking" for the defennces as well!). IF THE RETREAT OPTION IS IMPLEMENTED, LET IT BE JUST ANOTHER OPTION SET AT STARTUP. Finally, for all of us b&w macintosh users, it would be nice to mark the unprofitable ("pink") planets with a * just before the planet name in the budget window.
ted@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.210354.18769@cs.umn.edu> vergis@cs.umn.edu (Anastasios Vergis) writes: >In article <1991May31.185759.24553@tc.fluke.COM> moore@tc.fluke.COM (Matt Moore) writes: >> C) Lack of retreat from battles is not a problem for me: it adds a major >>element of uncertainty of the game, which is OK, because the game is all >>about long range planning in the face of uncertainty. >I agree. People who want to retreat from battles, should not forget that it >takes years to prepare a jump through hyperpace! If you really want >to find out about the enemy defences, well, send a small force there >first. This adds to the complexity of the game. Option to retreat >would make it much easier. There is also the question of how well >the computer opponents will use it. I don't agree. Think about this; detection range is longer than effective weapons range (by definition). If my guys swoop in and see a huge fleet coming out to meet them, I want the Admiral leading them (me) to be able to decide to run away, much like in Reach for the Stars. Of course, you can't scout the system until you have eliminated all of the enemy, just like now. I don't want to have to specify that my fleet will retreat after taking a certain amount of damage; I don't want my fleet running if there is only 1 enemy ship left and I've lost 50%...besides, I'm a firm believer in letting the being on the spot call the shots; that's what all of MY Admirals are trained to do... PLEASE speed up network games; I tried playing a 2 player 2 computer game (50 planets) on a fairly large network that was empty (the lab was closed), playing on Mac IIx's. Slow as dry cement... I'd also like to see protection for high valued ships; I'm not going to put my only colony ship in the fleet in the battle line with the rest of the ships; I don't care if it won't shoot as long as it stays safe. What about retreats insystem, or what if both players agree not to fight? In version 1.1, the money display could show a planet non-italicized (getting enough money), but come up with the 'some red planets...are not receiving enough money'. Please fix this; better yet, let you set the amound above the line for planets by typing it in. -- Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu) "Mad scientists HATE shopping for shoes!" -- Peaches
johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson) (06/01/91)
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) writes: > -- I'd love it. Even better would be a way to put a planet's spending > so that the budget for that planet stayed aligned with that bar as it > shrank. Yes! This would be most helpful. I often find myself with a planet that has been terraformed and mined, off in a corner of the galaxy (or in the very center of my area of control) where I don't care to build ships. It would be quite nice to have the amount of $$$ spent on that planet stay exactly what is necessary to support it on each turn, shrinking to $0 as the planet's need drops to $0. Thanks for the opportunity to give suggestions on v2.0! Erik A. Johnson, Graduate Student \ Internet: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering \ University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign \ AmericaOnline: ErikAJ
chris@momenta.com (Chris Christensen) (06/05/91)
I would generally agree with those who value playability over realiam. I think that playability is one of the best aspects of Spaceward Ho and would hate to lose that. I also like some of the assumptions abput instant transport of metal, not contacting fleets in transit, no retreats, no cloaking, etc for playability reasons. I liked the suggestions of: indicating which planets have ships queued. double click on explored planet list to see a planet way to indicate quickly to spend the bare minimum on this planet !! battle report that is quick, but has tabluar output of what ships were involved, destroyed, etc mark unprofitable planets on budget list for b&w players fancier battle graphics Teraforming technology seems unnecessary as it is easy enough to teraform later in the game and hard enough to begin with and technology would tend to make it easier at the end and harder at the beginning. Other possibilities: how about getting some % of scrap metal for the winner of the battle? tankers for refueling? Some people suggested building a second more complex game on top of the current easy to play one. That would be fine with me. How about adding diplomacy with non player characters? "let's attack player 1" "player 2 is going to attack you" "let's be makea neutral zone" "can I trade you some metal for those fancy engines?" "got any used ships I could buy"
kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun1.100822.1968@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson) writes: >Yes! This would be most helpful. I often find myself with a planet that >has been terraformed and mined, off in a corner of the galaxy (or in the >very center of my area of control) where I don't care to build ships. It >would be quite nice to have the amount of $$$ spent on that planet stay >exactly what is necessary to support it on each turn, shrinking to $0 as >the planet's need drops to $0. This reminds me of a related feature. Sometimes I'll have a colony that is now self-sufficient. All of the sudden, it will go into the red one turn. SH will alert me in the status windoid, but sometimes I'm just ending turns rapidly waiting for a colony to finish building a ship or somesuch other task. In the fund allocation chart it would be nice if such a colony that's suddenly gone into the red would be added (when you're only viewing a partial list). That way it's a more visual cue... Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com Isle Systems | Compuserve: >INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com Macintosh Consulting | AOL: KHancock | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
cfranz@iiic.ethz.ch (Christian Steffen Ove Franz) (06/06/91)
I just had another idea: how about the possibility of CAPTURING ships during combat? That way, a player can a) catch up on technology and b) have some profits (metal) out of a battle and what do you think about espionage? But then again, people start complaining that SpW Ho! is getting (or might be) too complex... well, just my 2 c$. christian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian S. O. Franz | cfranz@iiic.ethz.ch ETH Zuerich, Swizerland | vismgr@rz.ethz.ch
jba@gorm.ruc.dk (Jan B. Andersen) (06/06/91)
Could we have, say, the current planet blinking in the Galaxy window? I often
d-click on the planet name in the Report window, e.g. when a fleet has been
built that should go to some other planet, and I have to look very hard to
find it on the map. Similar when d-cliking in the Budget window.
Also, viewing battles is very, very fast on a IIsi. I often has to see it
3-4 times to understand why my ships were destroyed.
--
/| / Jan B. Andersen /^^^\ .----------------.
/ | / RUC, Hus 19,1 jba@dat.ruc.dk { o_o } | SIMULA does it |
/--|/ Postbox 260 DG-passer@ruc.dk \ o / --> | with CLASS |
`--' ' DK-4000 Roskilde Postmaster@ruc.dk --mm---mm-- `----------------'6600bwg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Barney W. Greinke) (06/15/91)
I definitely agree with the notion of a % scrap booty for the vicotr in a battle. BWG . :