STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) VOL 2 - MARCH 29, 1999 Hello Starweb Fans Here is the FAQ sheet of this little email discussion group. It is dedicated to discussions on Starweb. In other listservs I have co- operated in I have noted a huge volume problem that made it difficult to participate and keep up with. To combat this I think I would like to make a few informal rules. 1)The discussion group is dedicated to the topic of Starweb by Flying Buffalo Inc. Don't expect inclusion of any material that is off topic. 2)Try not to send replies to the whole distribution list. If you want to comment on something that was said - whether it be to refute, clarify or add then send it to me. If it looks interesting enough I will add it to the next installment. 3)If you want to discuss something with the author of a note - then by all means send him a note by email (not the whole group). I will try to create a distribution list where you can see who else is participating. If you don't like this aspect - I guess you will lurk more than you contribute :-) 4)I don't see myself sending stuff out more often than once per week. 5)The style I was thinking about was a short article on something regarding SW. (Got a nice one on how alliances have changed over the years). Then a comments section where I will put in some of the comments that people sent on previous issues. I may even put out a call for comments/opinions about an issue. 6)If you want out - just email and tell me. If you know anyone who would enjoy group have them email me to request joining. FBI - Rick feel free to let people know I'm doing this. You may give out my email address and if this idea takes off you could list it in the FBQ (Oh god I hope that wasn't a bonehead offer :-). Lets try this out. Since this is not being done professionally but just due to the love we all have for the game we will have to just see where it goes. Don't be shy - make suggestions. Before we go on I want to inform you that Rick Loomis the Numero Uno at FBI will be lurking in this group and he had a comment that I must share with you. Rick said: If you copy me on the discussion group, I will probably comment from time to time. I know I won't have time to make regular formal contributions. Also tell the group that I reserve the right to print any of it in FBQ if I find it interesting! (If someone writes something and they DONT want it printed in FBQ I will honor any such requests. Obviously if someone makes a disparaging remark about someone else, that won't be printed). Rick So if you want something kept in confidence - please say so. I hope that we won't have any disparaging remarks to worry about - but since I'm putting this together it isn't likely to be circulated widely. Elliot ARTICLE - PLAYING STYLES AND HOW THEY CHANGE OVER THE YEARS! Submitted by John Symons (I don't think John wishes to get a lot of email as he has declined joining - please restrict responses to me and this group). Here are exerpts of an email discussion I had with John about playing styles - it's not meant to be the definitive piece on this subject. >>Incidently, the idea of a big organised alliance didn't come into it - it was not a stream of thought well known in Starweb 16 years ago!! Your thoughts I've noticed always seem to ASSUME this style of play. Have ever tried a different approach Elliot? I'm curious. One style I really enjoy (it's difficult, but I've won games doing it) is to play the "neutral trader" - I've done it both as a collector and a merchant - any alliances in the game need to be able to trust you when you say you really are neutral and not lining up against them, but I find it very enjoyable - a veritable diplomatic challenge for sure, but that's why I enjoy it!!<< >>Interesting comments on playing styles! Back in 1983 before email, playing slow games where all communication between players was by snailmail, or VERY expensive phone calls (for someone living in Australia) big alliances were VERY difficult to organise - that style of play really wasn't a realistic possibility for me - not to the extent of co-operation we have organised in the last few years in games where I've played big alliances. I simply learnt to play another way. Essentially, those conditions encouraged a more individualistic approach, with perhaps alliances with indivuals others (who might also be mutually allied, but not necessarily). The neutral trader approach is something I've only tried as collector or merchant and they certainly lend themselves to this approach. I agree that it is less viable with other character types, but I'd like to propose that an EB can do it well!! In SW-Z1261, I played EB, came second with over 9000 points in an arranged finish. In that game I had one primary ally - A pirate. As for ALL other dealings, I dealt on a one by one basis - it worked. Again, it was hard work, but then again I was doing the trader thing I was playing a strenuous diplomatic role, and keeping my nose officially out of things while feeding the Pirate ships and keys as fast as I could hand them over, for his conquests. The big organised alliances is something I have seen two faces of. It is certainly a highly successful way to play, and if well organised by good players, it guarantees success of the goals of the players in the alliance. There are two things I like less about this style. They both involve relations with other players not in the alliance. Those in the way of the big alliance often harbour feelings of bitterness, and take strange diplomatic positions because they feel that they are being limited in their enjoyment of the game by the big alliance. The spoiler approach would be fun. I've never successfully tried it. In SW-X1240, I tried it - for one turn. That was an extention of SW-Z1240 which David Benepe won at about T14 and most of us agreed that we'd been chopped of in full flight and wanted to continue the game, hence the private extension. Several players had multiple positions in the game after the private part commenced due to some players not wanting to keep it going. I was playing a collector (I'd come second behind David at T14) and didn't take an extra position in the continuation. About T18, a berserker got bored and dropped and I took the position, hopefully I thought, anonymously, and moved to put spanners in the works of several players (David in fact copped a blow from me - he wasn't impressed!!). Unfortunately for my plans, it was announced on the bottom of everyone's printout, who had taken over the position!! Rats! So much for the anonymous fun spoiler bit. After some difficult explaining, the game went on. All for now John.<< COMMENTS - VOL 1 - ON BEING METALLIC In this article I discuss the break even mark of a population of 100 for a berserker to change from R attacks to PBBs. Although correct in theory and I stand by my approach my math skills were not accurate. Here is an excerpt by David Benepe as he sorts out my poor math :-). Thanks David! ----------------------------------------------------------------- I've heard about the 100 breakeven for years, but its not exactly as you described it. Here's what you said. "When deciding whether to R attack vs PBB - breakeven is 100 population. To kill 100 takes an R25 and gives 400 points. To PBB a world 0f 100 takes 25 ships also and gives 400 points. Any worlds below 100 population you wish to make kills on are better R attacked than PBBed. Any world over 100 pop should be PBBed - as you get bonus points/ship (that is you get more than the 400 points you could get in R attack)." Killing 100 doesn't take R25, it takes R13. R13=26 robots x 4 pop each = 104. (or 100 with 1 robot laid down). This is only 200 points. But if you Robotize two 100 pop worlds and leave 1 robot on each it takes 26 ships to score 400 points plus 10 points per turn for the 2 worlds. Dropping a PB on a world with 100 pop and leaving 2 robots (to own the world for points) takes 26 ships and scores 400 points + 5 points per turn. This is as close to breakeven as you can get without fractional robots, which of course are not allowed (you cant be 1/2 berzerk, its all or nothing!). Anyway, your conclusion is right, so no harm done! --------------------------------------------------------------- CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION ON BERSERKER TRIVIA? (Please email me the answer for publication). >> Question: If I migrate a robot to a world on the turn it is bombed, will I gain control of the world? Or will the robot die in attacking the pop or in the bomb? << -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR ARTICLES Well it doesn't have to be a full article but I sure would like any thoughts, tips or information for this newsgroups on these topics. Tales of the Black Box (I would like to make a list) Backstabbers, Spoilers and brats - should we tolerate them? Multi games - call for articles Anonymous games - call for articles Bitter end games - call for articles Multi games - call for articles Well, that's it for Volume 2 - comments, thoughts etc - email Somnos@compuserve.com. Elliot Hudes