STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://www.flyingmoose.ca) VOLUME 60 May 6, 2002 CONTENTS Feature Articles – A Map for a 4k Memory by Lin Goldstein - Our Reporter From the Front by Richard Broman Questions – Scoring mathematics SEDG Web Page URL The Swap Corner – New Domain, new products and a plug! Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE Feature #1 A Map for a 4k Memory -- The "Layer of Bricks" By Lin Goldstein In the old days of Starweb, there was only one map with several variations called, by Rick Loomis, the "layer of bricks". The map was simple to use, but had interesting patterns, and was easily worked into 4K memory. The map could be varied by what I will call the "magic number" (MN). Here is how it worked. Each world was assigned a unique number (AN) between 0 and 224 (in those days there were only 225 worlds -- puzzle: why?) Then two worlds are adjacent if their AN differed by 1 or 224 or if they obeyed the following mathematical relationship. If the sum of the magic number (MN) and their AN resulted in one number being a multiple of the other they were adjacent. In other words the greatest number (G) = AN1 + MN while the lower number (L) = AN2 + MN. When G/L = an integer that is >= 2 the worlds are adjacent. Obviously a world is not adjacent to itself, so if G=L (the ratio is 1) there is no connection. This formula is best understood by looking at sample maps of AN+MN. The map with the highest MN such that no section of the map contains only one or two "layer of bricks" has MN = 64 -- a higher MN will give a one layer portion at MN+AN = 97 Example - A map with MN=64 + denotes where two connections cross each other >< are edges which continue on This map has been divided into a left and right side to avoid wrapping of lines by various email programs that would cause it to arrive in disarray. For the same reason the middle portion has been chopped out. This first example is 7 lines deep (6 bricks) and you can line up the two sides line by line (e.g. 174->189, 87->95). Left side: <-170----171----172-----173----174-> | | | <-85------------86-------------87-> | | | <-255-256--257--258--259--260--261--262--263--264-> |\ | |\ | |\ <-128+------129-------130+------131-------132+-> |/ |/ |/ 64------------------65------------------66-> /| | | 288| | | <-192---193----194----195----196----197---198-> | | | | <-96-----------97------------98-----------99-> Right side: <-189----190----191----192-> | | <--------95------------96-> | | 64 | | / <--284---285--286-287--288 |\ | |\ <--142+-------143------144+-----145------146-> |/ |/ | <--71------------------72----------------73-> | | | <--213----214----215---216---217---218---219-> | | | <---------107----------108---------109-> This map shows the wraparound from the top right to the bottom left. A "bridge" of three" layer of bricks" appears in the bottom right and wraps around to the top four lines. MN=64 has MN+AN 73 to 85 in the three "layer of brick" "bridge" and only 64 to 72 outside the "bridge". Movement and neighbors are clearly limited in the "bridge" area. The overall picture looks like this: --------------------------------------------- ^ | | |^ | | | || A | | || | | | || v | | || ------------- |B ^| || || || || || || || || |V B| |----------- || | |^ || | || || | |A || | || V| | |v -------------------------------------------- And the map with the lowest MN = 56 to avoid six connector worlds (56 isn't a six connector because AN+224 = 280 connects to 56 by both rules (being a multiple and separated by 224), eliminating a connector.) Left side: <-149--150----151-----152-----153-----154-> | | | <-75-------------76--------------77-> | | | <-224--225--226--227--228--229--230--231-> |\ | |\ | <-112+------113-------114+------115-> |/ |/ 56------------------57-> / | | 280 | | | | <-168---169----170----171----172-> | | | <-84-----------85------------86-> | | | <-252-253-254--255-256--257--258-> | | | | <-126-----127------128-------129-> | | <-63---------------64-> | | <-189---190--191---192-> | | <-95---------96-> Right side: <-166-----167----168-> | | <-83-------------84-> | | <-248--249--250--251--252-> | | | <-124-------125-------126-> | | <-62------------------63-> | | <-186---187----188----189-> | | <-93-----------94-----------95> | * <-279-280 /|\ *56| | <-----140+-----141-----142------143------144-> |/ | | <-----70---------------71----------------72-> | | | <-----210---211--212---213---214---215---216-> | | | | <-----105--------106---------107---------108-> *56 and 280 have "knothole" connection and 280 is 5*56 This map has more layers of bricks, which happens when MN are lower. The bridge from 71 to 74, and 56 to 62 or 63 to 70 describe the main map. How was this discovered? SW-163 was a "special map" variant game. In this game, among worlds with a larger number of connections, the highest was a 46 connector world, which connected to a 39 connector world, and the 39 connector world connected to a 21 connector world. I recognized the 46 connector world as going to about 1/5 of the other worlds, the 39 connector world as going to about 1/6 of the other worlds, and the 21 connector world usually going to the same worlds as ones in the 39 connector world. Eventually I realized the MN + 0 = 5 for the 46 connector world, the MN + 1 = 6 for the 39 connector world, and the MN + 7 = 12 for the 21 connector world. Then I thought of the special map game as a special case of a range of higher MN maps, and solved the MN around 60 for the regular games. Computer Algorithms for both the map and other possibilities It is not too hard to write an assembly routine to shuffle the numbers 0 to 224 into and with 256 bytes of computer memory. And once it is done, the check for connectivity is also small. I have two small C routines to do those, keeping in mind the constraints of assembly language programming. The beauty of the "layer of bricks map" is that it takes **** no **** memory to store the map because the mathematical algorithm is so effective. They loaded a subroutine into memory, of which neither the randomizing of the worlds nor the check to see if a world is adjacent is the largest subroutine that would be loaded into memory. Therefore, no additional memory for programming, and no map storage memory since the 225 world randomization would be needed anyway. Steve (Rick's programmer) presumably had the world population, industry, converts, etc. stored on a tape and read the tape in world by world and wrote it out world by world. Then read and rewind the tape again to generate players' printouts, keeping 1 bit of memory for each world for each player to indicate whether or not the world belonged on the printout. This would take 450 bytes storage for printout control. In the old days, when a fleet was reported on a world as moving to another world, it appeared as F1[?] instead of F1[PLAYERNAME]. Since at most 3 worlds can have such reports for each key, and the world numbers must have been stored to generate the printout, only the memory for [PLAYERNAME] needed to be added to give F1[PLAYERNAME] instead of F1[?]. The amount of memory is 1/2 byte/world number for three worlds, or 1.5 bytes/key, thus 1.5 x 225 = 337.5 bytes for the 225 keys. The world numbers would have taken 225 x 3 = 675 bytes. I think there was enough memory for the PLAYERNAMEs to be printed, but the programmer "forgot" that the ownership could change (pirate captures, ambush, not combat because that was before movement), and making the change would have delayed the release of Starweb more than desirable. After all, why should a key going through the web necessarily leave a clue to its ownership? Back then there were neither EVERYONE messages nor signs for fleets. In fact, I think the change to F1[PLAYERNAME] was made after Starweb was reprogrammed from assembly language to PASCAL. The challenge of getting a high quality PBM game such as Starweb into a computer with a 4K memory must have been great. In those days, there were numberous "small" PBM games that Flying Buffalo ran (Time Trap, Raumkreig, Moonbase, Board of Directors), but only BattlePlan approached the compexity of Starweb, and I think BattlePlan was much easier to program. The map described here was a major way to save memory, and few players realized that when they made their maps. Addendum Editor's note: I read Lin's article and was fascinated by the mathematics involved to generate a unique map pattern that didn't require the SW program to remember the whole map. Obviously computer memory is no longer the limiting step any longer in computer games as I have one game that is on 5 CDs presently. I have been creating maps for FBI (that are being used). I can label adjacent worlds in series 1,2,3,4... and the FBI Starweb program shuffles the numbers randomly for each game. Obviously the world number shuffling algorithm is still active in the program. I assign numbers from 1-255 to my blank template and submit them in FBI format. While I have been having fun creating maps by hand I know that Chuck (at FBI) has programs that allow him to test a 'Starweb Universe' for suitability such as checking that HWs are spaced properly. I have managed to use the FMT Starweb Analyzer to test how many rings apart the HWs are also. He has also let slip that he has a program that allows him to create maps that don't have to actually exist in 3-D space which explains some of the recent maps that have not been cracked even by veteran SW mappers. It is interesting to see the format that FBI uses to store the map information for a game. It is a matrix of numbers. There are 4 columns and 255 rows. They are unlabelled but each row represents the worlds and the 4 columns contain the connections to other worlds. You don't have to list a connection more than once (If W4-W1 then you only have to list it under W4 or W1 but not both). This means potentially you could create a world with 244 connections if the world in question is listed on all worlds. E.g. a list of worlds 1 thru 3. 33 44 3 2 3 55 78 0 5 49 110 99 In this represention of Worlds 1, 2, 3 you can see that W3 has 6 connections (1,2,5,49,99,110), while W2 has only 4 connections (a '0' represents the lack of further connections). After constructing the list you place below the matrix the list of Homeworlds and blackholes. That's it – a full Starweb Map. Feature #2 OUR REPORTER FROM THE FRONT by Richard Broman (THE IMAGE:) The spaceport was the only place where the emperial magnates could meet and interact. Out there in the web of planets, these entities competed with each other over whole worlds; entire fleets of ships and thousands of populated cultures. But on this side of the portbays, they could meet to speak and sometimes laugh. Those who did laugh. There was a vibrant silence in the halls that lead to the meeting room, broken only by the sounds of plush boots stepping through the door, and a few strange, buzzing sounds from the servos of two machine- entities who gathered here to represent their planet-sized computermind leaders. Others who came were men--all richly garbed except one, who was the spiritual leader of his race of fanatics. His expression was intense with the maddened ferocity of a Jihadin, and he reluctantly surrenders his sword when he enters this place of meeting. In the web, his sword was revered for being as sharp as even the Berzerkers'. Inside the room, the Imperial representatives eye each other suspiciously. They sit down for a game of cards. Five figures sit at the table, each with two accompanying partners standing nearby behind them. Four of the figures are richly dressed beyond imagining, with fingers jeweled and robes flowing with the rarest furs and fabrics. The fifth sitting at the table wears the crisp uniform of his Empire. He has the aura of one who has vast landholdings, and he knows he needs to keep them from the hands of space-faring pirates; he keeps a vigilant eye. As the hands are dealt, the three Pirates jostle each other with the fidgety energy of their lust for space, much like their behavior in the Web of Worlds. It seems this game is a metaphor for each figure's nature. The two machines eye the activity at the table with cold calculation; they are here for more than mere moral support for the representative player at the table. The 3 Pirates play wildly, showing each other their hands and smiling coyly each round. Two of them wink, and then one pulls out a stylus and thrusts it at the third, who quickly comes to a twitching end. His two partners sullenly carry out his corpse, and the game continues with four at the table. At several points, the Pirates peer boldly over the table trying to get a look at the Apostle's hand. He refuses, keeping his cards close to his chest. One Pirate is non-plussed, and stands up drawing his writing stylus to use as a weapon. The Apostle stares back with a steely gaze, and his machine-entity partner immediately thrusts a finger into the Pirate's side, the steel of the robot's body piercing all the way to the heart. Weapons were surrendered at the door, but the Pirate has used his writing stylus as a weapon, and the robot can use his own body as such if needed. Two more limbs eject from the machine in lightning speed to pierce the partners standing behind the now quivering Pirate. He drops his stylus from a clenching fist, tight in a deathly rictus.... It all happens in less than a fraction of a second; it would take longer for the Pirate to fall than the action to kill him took. The machine spreads the piercing finger into a fan of nanorobots, each entering the Pirate's comrades to do their work. He'll die eventually, but there's still much fighting to be done... The fourth figure at the table, the Imperial soldier, knocks over his chair standing up abruptly, and raises his fists agressively. This looks like it's going to be a brawl.... THE GAME The intro is my prosaic attempt to describe the general player interactions in this multi game. At the start, we had THREE players who chose the Pirate-Collector-Merchant trio. Another player chose EB Berzerker-Merchant, and I chose Apostle-Berzerker-Collector. The fact that I chose NOT to have a Merchant in my trio will figure prominently later in this article. The Image I wrote above describes hyperbolicly the elimination of one of the P-C-M players-- at turn 5 his score was MUCH higher than anyone else's, and that fact led us all to know that he was plundering madly. In fact, every world I saw of his was plundered. Mines, even heavy Industry were all unusable. It didn't take long for at least three of us (2 PCMs and me) to remove him. I robotized 2 of his HWs, and in the "falling on his sword" category, he gifted his third HW to the EB before dropping. In reference to the Image, once he was "carried away from the table", it left 2 PCMs to talk amongst themselves and decide who's next. That's when it got interesting. More on that later, but on turn 13 I have robotized all three of one PCM's HWs. AHA!-ULING My character choices were made largely on the basis that it isn't absolutely necessary to have a Merchant. It would likely make the difference of one turn in reaching maximum hauling (that's been my experience) and I hoped to appease my neighbors enough to prevent the ugly mess of an early war. Fortune smiled on me when one neighbor dropped and made for a juicy tender morsel ripe for conquest. To say "one neighbor" is perhaps a misnomer. We were ALL neighbors. This map is a tight, complex weave, and even using the SWAP (plug!) you see a nasty mix of crossovers everywhere. Obviously 3D, but even more exasperating because I have not as yet figured out the overall pattern. I just have to play with a nasty mix of crossovers in my map. One player calls this map "the rat's nest"... By turn 5, everyone had met everyone. Literally. One thought that ran through my mind early in the game was that with such a tight map, conflict would be inevitable, bloody and everywhere. I have not been proved incorrect on that assumption. Since I had no Merchant, it made me kinda worry about my hauling rates. Then another aspect of this web gave me an idea. Many of the worlds in this web are highly industrialized. Several worlds have 5-7 Industry, and some of those have only 1 or 2 mines. Very interesting. My Collector's ring 2 worlds include the assortment of typical 0/2/nn/nn worlds, occasional 1/3/nn/nn worlds, but also a 7/6/nn/nn world, 7/5/nn/nn world and a 5/2/nn/nn world. My Apostle had a 7/1/nn/nn ring ONE world, and my Berzerker had a 6/2/nn/nn ring one world. All nicely salted with some 1/3 and 1/2 worlds. None I have seen were 1/1/nn/nn worlds. Well. That meant that if I juggled my fleet movements just right I could easily make up for the lack of Merchant. I set about utilizing every last drop of Industry I could wring from my regions towards the goal of reaching full production by turn 7. (I got to about 26 on turn 7, and 30 by the next turn...) It always surprises me when I find even experienced players who let their Industrialized worlds stockpile their Iships. Those suckers are crucial in the early stages of the game! Even a single Iship is useful for hauling. Early turns are typically filled with several 1-ship fleets loading and going home to be loaded up with builds there. Well, send that one-shipped key to your outer industrialized worlds, and load TWO ships with metal. Or more, if the world has it. Most players know that you have to feed all that unusable Industry on your HW, and hauling is the natural answer. But if you have a 7-Industry/1-Mine outer world, those 6 extra Industries are just as unusable. So if you haul to THAT world, it's just as good as hauling to your HW. Plus you get that extra build from its own mine. Simply put, the cycle looks like this: your outermost world, newly explored (say ring 3) has your exploration fleet and an empty key. Transfer ONE ship to the empty key, load it, and load your other key fully. Your larger full fleet moves to the HW, and your 1-ship key moves to the 7/1 world. You unload at the HW and it goes out to haul (now larger, that's the normal hauling schedule) but your 1-ship key has ALSO hauled (to the 7/1 world) and it is ALSO now larger (even if by 1 ship). Next turn, you'll have ANOTHER loaded 1-ship key at that world, and you'll be getting TWO builds there, doubling that fleet's increase. That's as good as a Merchant. A similar method of hauling can and should be done in any map style. Whenever you capture an industrialized world, you should NEVER be building Iships until you've reached full production at your HW. You should be building onto your small fleets every turn. Even those 2/2/nn/nn worlds that are common can become useful in the hauling schedule. Bring in a 1-ship key, build onto it, and move it to your mined worlds. I've had phone conversations with experienced players, and usually the reason they give me for not carrying out such a hauling schedule is "it's too much effort". Oh jeez, it just makes me cry! I may be a little compulsive but the extra effort I put into my empire pays off with nice ship-laden conquest armadas. DIPLOMACY AND STRATEGY One thing I love about StarWeb is the players. ("I love you guys!!...aw can you feel the love in this room?.... No! No! No singing here!....") No, actually I feel that StarWeb players are a different breed from your run-of-the-mill war gamer. It takes a mind that can visualize, to be able to see vast armadas of conquest and bloody infighting on the basis of our text-based turnsheets. It's been said before in the SEDG, and I'll say it again: the graphics are not impressive. But it really doesn't matter. The game is played in the communal mind that we create through diplomacy. It must be an empty, lonely space that the "lone wolf" players play in. Colored only by black-and-white text format.... Some people like it that way. But I like the interaction, even at a distance, between players. The diplomacy in this game has been rich, especially considering it's a multi. The player we eliminated was pounced on mostly because he didn't communicate. But what HAS been said among the other players has led to an interesting environment in which to carry out a conquest. I guess I should interject one comment here: I'm not the top player. When I say "carry out a conquest" what in fact I'm doing is going Berserk. Just like in the old days, the First Berzerkers, who would enter battle naked, clothed only in tatoos, with such a frenzy that the enemy would back off, intimidated. Well, these Pirates aren't intimidated. But I'm in a frenzy, and I can't stop. So there be much killin 'n stuff. But that aside, let me describe the diplomacy so far. The EB-Berz-Merch (I'll call him BEM) played quietly at first, and our interaction was very moderate. A couple of juicy worlds for Artifacts (worlds that were at full population, and so less useful to my Apostle). As a point of fact, he was ostensibly "allied" to PCM1 (and possibly PCM2, but PCM1 for sure). PCM2 and I had very little interaction, but the plan was to "orchestrate a three-way finish" so that PCM1, PCM2 and me (ABC) could have nice ratings. I liked that idea, but with each passing turn that had almost no detail in that plan discussed, I began to suspect that the Pirates weren't exactly ....um, forthcoming. But the three of us did agree explicitly on one point: three Collectors dividing up a limited supply of Artifacts. Tight indeed. Since it's the low score that determines the game's finish, we felt it was a serious possibility that the Collectors among us would be the determining factor in who would finish the game. The Merchants of course were never a serious factor. In multi games, a Merchant can finish with a high score simply on the basis of his two partners. Well, PCM1 decides to stab BEM. With Michael Corleone references, his action was swift and deadly. BEM was in a heap of trouble. That's when he and I started talking seriously. It's turn 10 and I've just invaded two of the dropped player's HWs. At this point a very interesting coincidence occurred between PCM1 and me. We had all those Artifacts on the HWs, and three Collectors to "orchestrate". PCM1 told me that PCM2 wasn't very hungry for the Art, and I honestly believe that's possible (you reading this, RIGEL??) after all, PCM2 was and still is the leader in score. But PCM1 disagreed with my proposal to divide the Art, some of which would be on neutral keys (the Ancient Pyramid for one). We disagreed amicably, and we agreed that once the Art was non-neutral, we'd have to come to some agreement. We kind of agreed to disagree. But I could feel it coming. There were rumblings. So I spent turn 10 positioning my ships just in case PCM1 decided to call out his dogs. Meanwhile BEM and I are starting to talk seriously about mutual defense. The last days of turn 10 were extremely active diplomatically. By turn 11, PCM1 made his decision. To his greater glory as a gamesman, he openly declared war. At this point I had to "hold my cards close to my chest" (and hence the Image at the article's start) because PCM1 and BEM had been trading turnsheets until the stab. And BEM and I had exchanged this information when PCM1 made his stab. And I was in position with about 250 ships to within 3 hops of PCM1's Homeworlds! When we received our turn 12 sheets, it was the morning of my day off. I wake up, check me email, and see that about 15 minutes ago I received my turn from FBI. Yippie! Sitting there with my pipe and coffee, reading over the juicy details of my successful invasion. I had one very large Berzerker and 1 large Jihad key on each of his HWs. Sweet. One of my Berzerker keys made it past the ambushes with only 3 ships to spare!! Oh sweet. And within 10 minutes of reading my turnsheet, I get an email from PCM1. His 1-line email message is best kept between him and me. Oh sweet. My response to him was a smile and the simple line: "that is why I love wargaming!" And it is why I love wargaming. Sometimes if you put yourself in the right position you can make some amazing moves. Ahem. Enough nostalgia, it's turn 13. Reality is grit. And blood. And wrecked ruined worlds, and the smoke of Planet-Buster Bombs and Pirate captures. I had enough ships at all 3 HWs to succeed at robotizing them, and my Apostle got some nice Jihad for gravy. But PCM2 decided to join the fray, and openly too. This war for me has been open and honorable. I've taken some pounding and given too. BEM has been fighting for dear life, and he and I exchange very pleasant emails rife with musical lyrics from "War Pigs" and other military suggestions. He's become a good ally, and a good neighbor, but we're both fighting for our lives. I've been lucky to pick up a huge number of ground-ships from taking out the dropped PCM, but likewise both other PCMs have vacuumed up a bunch of ship-laden keys. At turn 13 my Berzerker has a score of about 3000, which means I've been using my ships. It's true that to score, a Berzerker should play pacifist, but I don't have that luxury. I want to score but I have to fight. If for no other reason than to protect my Collector's Art. BEM has developed a healthy fury of his own. He's doing some interesting things in his region, and it's possible I'll mention some of them in my next installment. You can bet though, that any introductory "Image" prose will be along the lines of characters franticly running and ducking through the halls, eager to return to their ships.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? Let's test your mathematical scoring skills. Here is the scenario. Both Finnian and Snacker are Apostles. W18 (9,41,107,166,186,248) [FINNIAN] C[FINNIAN] (Metal=106,Mines=7, Population=76C,Limit=164,Turns=5,P-Ships=1) F232[SNACKER]=24 (Moved,Cargo=24,PLANET-BUSTER(Built)) Can you figure out how many points Snacker can get at this world by executing different sets of orders? Remember, this can be complicated so think about the orders you would execute. Please state the orders you would write for each scenario and how many points you can expect to get. a) If Snacker goes for the AH. b) If he tries to AP. c) If he drops the bomb. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP - is now available on the web. Look for our new MAPPER'S SECTION on the SEDG Web Page. http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/sedg.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE SWAP CORNER By the time of publication the Flying Moose Technologies' Great White North (Canadian) Starweb Tournament will have already taken place. I expect that the June (or July) issue to cover this event and perhaps on the SEDG web page I will have some photographs of the event. The only news here at FMT is the purchase of our very own domain. You can find us on the web at www.flyingmoose.ca. Active email addresses that are fairly self-explanatory are: sales@flyingmoose.ca techsupport@flyingmoose.ca somnos@flyingmoose.ca mikewulkan@flyingmoose.ca webmaster@flyingmoose.ca New Products I still have a few Flying Moose Technologies T shirts available. As usual both logos (the serious and comical moose) are available. To review these you can find them on the SEDG/FMT web pages. The cost of T shirts remains $27.00 US. I have available Flying Moose Technologies mouse pads ($16.95 US) and coffee mugs (1 sided image only = $16.95 US – double sided image = $21.95 US). And finally – Flying Moose Technology baseball caps at $16.95 US. All orders must include $4.00 US shipping and handling. Most of the Starweb Analyzer features have been covered in previous SEDG issues (available at the SEDG web site http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/sedg.htm. So it's time for another unsolicited plug for our software. Welcome to Flying Moose Technologies, makers of the Starweb Analyzer The Starweb Analyzer The Starweb Analyzer is a utility that provides a completely new user interface for playing the play-by-mail game Starweb run by Flying Buffalo Inc.. Although we all know that Starweb is an awsome game, the game turns that you get either by e-mail or snail-mail leave much to be desired. Well we can't help you snail-mail players, but if you get your turns sent to you via e-mail (which FBI will do for you if you ask), we have the tool to launch Starweb into the 2000's. The Starweb Analyzer will allow you to view your game turns and those of your allies (or enemies) in a manner you never could before. The Starweb Analyzer takes the Starweb turns that FBI sends you, and processes them so that they are combined together and presented in an Analysis Window, an easy to use Graphical User Interface that allows you to view an manipulate one master turn that combines all known information that you have accumulated. Highlights The Analyzer keeps track of worlds no longer seen on the current turnsheets and labels what turn they were seen last. -Various filtering and sorts can be used to manipulate the combined information to find those important things you want without having to study a printout for hours. For example, finding the largest metal stockpile within three worlds of your homeworld is done easily. If your allies don't have the Starweb Analyzer (shame on them!) you can generate reports for them in a text file suitable for printing or e- mail. -Computer aided mapping -Intelligent order editing In addition the Analysis Window contains a Map View which eliminates the need for paper and pencil and those messy spaghetti maps that plague us in the game. The map supports mouse controlled drag and drop to move worlds around. It handles wrap around worlds easily and you can save the map as a text file suitable for e-mailing to an ally. He just plugs the map file into his Starweb Analyzer program and the same map appears. The Analyzer also offers an intelligent Order Editor that allows you to prepare your orders for submission to Flying Buffalo Inc. The orders are checked for typographical errors as well as a many logical errors. Only valid Starweb orders will be accepted. It will not allow orders for keys or worlds that you do not own and checks for mutually exclusive orders, valid world connections, as well as orders that exceed your resources (for example it would warn you if you tried to transfer more ships than are on a key). The Order Editor allows you to save this file and revisit it at any time for revisions. A prompting feature helps to construct the orders without having to refer to the Starweb reference manual for help with the cryptic order syntax. Please note - The Starweb Analyzer requires Windows NT, 95, 98, Me or 2000. The Starweb Analyzer is available in two forms: 1) An Evaluation Version (free) This version has the following restrictions: - It will only process Starweb games up to and including turn six - It will only process turn sheets for a maximum of two players It is intended to give you a chance to see what it can do, but is not adequate to play a complete game. 2) A fully registered version. To order the Evaluation Version just download it from our web site -- The address is http://flyingmoose.ca. For the registered version the password to unlock the evaluation version is provided upon receipt of payment for the program. You may also request the program by CD. PRICING - Fully Registered Version (OUR PRICES HAVEN'T CHANGED IN 4 YEARS!) 1)$40.00 U.S. For Ontario Residents 8% sales tax = 43.20 U.S. 2)Snail mail shipping/handling charge is $4.00. Waived if you take delivery by download. ORDER FORM Starweb Analyzer Order Form Print, fill in the form and send it to the address listed below. Name in the Real World: ___________________________ Address: __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ Email address _____________________________________ I prefer to receive my software via: a) __ CD by Snail Mail (a $4.00 U.S. shipping and handling charge per copy applies). b) __ by download. Each copy is $40.00 (Ontario residents add 8% sales tax = 43.20 U.S.) plus a snail mail shipping/handling charge of $4.00. Waived if you take delivery by download. Number of copies: ________ Enclosed is: _____________ U.S. Please note - if you submit your order via email it will be completed when payment by cheque or money order is received. Send your orders to: Flying Moose Technologies 2912 Remea Court Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5L 2H5. For more information, email us at somnos@flyingmoose.ca or come to our web page at - http://www.flyingmoose.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Daryl Paul writes: It seems that everyone is getting two-cents worth in about scoring and it must have some effect. The bonus for Artifact Collector museums has been added since I last played. That brings to mind the following idea (or possibly some variation). Shouldn't require a re-coding of the game so it should be a relatively safe thing to do. These might also have the effect of making it a little less likely that a successful Pirate will want to give ships to a Berserker late in the game. It may give the mega alliances something else to think about How about a one time end-game bonus for the Pirate synonomous with the AC museum. 1. 1pt. for each ship on keys (I-ships and P-ships don't count) or 2. 500pt. for each key with 200 or more ships attached. or 3. 500pt. for each 50 keys (150 keys = 1500pt bonus, 49 keys = 0pt bonus) How about making Berserkers paranoid. 4.100pt for each captured PBB still owned at the end of the game. Rick Loomis Responds: Interesting idea but (1) the bonus for artifact museums was added a LOOOONGGGG time ago and (2) any change in scoring WOULD require recoding. We don't do any of the scoring by hand. Rick John David Galt said: "Elliot T. Hudes" wrote: > The Mega-alliance – A discussion > By Elliot Hudes, Lee Knirko, Paul Balsamo and John Muije > > A little while ago Lee Knirko and I had a discussion regarding how > the size of alliances in Starweb had made the game less enjoyable. For me, this is the lesser of two problems that make Starweb less enjoyable, and the only thing I can think of that would help is to modify the game to allow a larger number of players. (Or at least insist on having 15 before starting a game.) Limiting "ally" orders would not help, in my opinion; it would only lead to people shooting at or capturing their allies' ships/worlds accidentally. (And I often declare neutrals as "allies" in order to let them haul in my space or come in to get art.) The other (and greater) problem is that there is an "in-group" of frequent players who know each other and tend to "pre-ally" (if not before the game, then before meeting each other in the game), thus unfairly handicapping anyone else in terms of ability to find allies. Incidentally, the two things that FB has done to "help" (limiting gifts to two per turn, and not allowing messages to everyone at the start) are both very counterproductive in my view. The gift limit doesn't hinder anyone from "throwing" a game AT ALL, since it's easy to arrange for a large capture (for instance, fly all your fleets to a world of player X, then transfer all the ships to I-ships), but it does really screw the guy playing a Multi position who'd like to have his EB or Apostle capture all the worlds at the start, then give all his fleets to his Merchant to haul with. And of course the message rule pretty much creates the second problem, since it means that you can only negotiate in the first 3 turns if you know the other guy before the game starts (and talk to him either through some channel outside the game, or by MSG to his reserved name). I am currently avoiding the message rule by playing only in private games where all the players' identities are revealed at game start, thus allowing me to start negotiating then. But the only thing that would really fix the in-group problem is to add messages to anonymous games, as I proposed in SEDG 48. Abolishing reserved names and requiring everyone to play under house names would also help. And as for your statement > 3) We are better off without the players who get fed up and > threaten to quit. I don't play games with losers who will quit if > they aren't doing well. No one is threatening to quit just because he isn't playing well. People are quitting (or threatening to quit) playing Starweb because mega-alliances have made the game less interesting, or because the in-group situation makes it unfair, or both. Those are legitimate reasons, and if you dismiss complainers as cry babies, you are part of the problem. Regards, John David Galt Editor's note: I agree with your statements regarding the problem of frequent players who pre-ally. Personally I don't fish for contacts before first contact in the game (usually T4 or T5). The problem really isn't so sinister - the smaller player pool means that you will often meet a player on T4 who you have successfully allied and enjoyed a game with in the past. It becomes very easy to ally again vs looking for newcomers and excluding old friends. As for the comment regarding players not quitting just because they aren't doing well - yes, most emphatically yes, this has occurred in several games recently. El Rick Loomis said: > The problem that's got me irked lately is that >FBI keeps starting games with 10-11 players and then 6 of them >ally. We started a batch of games with fewer than 15, if I recall, because we wanted to fit everyone in, and we had too many for one game, not enough for two full games. We'll try not to start "less than full" games except in rare circumstances, and you are free to specify in your startup request that you only want a full game. > >Jack Fulmer said: >I've only played a collector as part of anonymous multi-SW games. One >certain way to demonstrate that you are a Collector is go to a border >world owned by the player to whom you want to communicate. If you >arrive with two small keys and at least one artifact on a key you >could sit over the world for a couple of turns and swap the artifact >back and forth from key to key. > > I've never tried this but it should work under the rules. Now, >whether or not the other player will notice what you're doing is not >at all certain. Or if he does notice will he make you an ally or a >victim? Whenever I'm in an anonymous game, if another player flies near one of my artifacts, I try to put it on his fleet (assuming it's not one of my +point artifacts) to see whether he is a collector. If I find a collector, I assume he needs allies (grin) and start giving him artifacts. At least I *know* he isn't a pirate or berserker! When I play a collector, I do the "change artifacts between fleets" trick. But I do it only once, then fly away to do it for someone else. If a guy can't figure it out seeing it once, he's not smart enough to ally with! Actually if *I* saw someone show up at my border world with two small fleets, one of which had an artifact on it, I would *assume* he was a collector and about to prove it to me. This trick works even better if you have a NEGATIVE artifact like a plastic. Those tend to get peoples' attention, and they watch to see what you do with it. Actually, another way to tell people you are a collector is to fly around carrying a plastic. If you haven't gotten rid of it, and aren't dumping it on them, then one should suspect you are a collector. >Elliot: >I've thought of that gambit also. I find that in the early game I >frequently can't spare too many keys for such a luxury as having 2 sit >and play catch the art, as I need to get hauling! You don't have to do it TOO early in the game. And if you find a couple of good allies, you may not need to do much hauling anymore. Rick Mac McLey said: Concering the discussion in SEGG I no longer play in SW because I don't find it enjoyable. I loved the game that existed in the late 70s and 80s. But with the advent of email and gettng a message to everyone by the start of T2 the game changed and I do not find it as enjoyable. Since then I have tried a few games. My most enjoyable one was a recent bitterend game, that I lost. I am not sure why I don't enjoy the game now since I play in other PBM games with email alliances. I guess that I like a small 2 or 3 player alliance. Those are just attacked as weaklings by the 5 - 8 player alliances. So why spend money for an effort that is doomed from the start. I would guess that something is wrong with the current SW since FBI cannot fill the game. Something needs to be done before the game just fades away. Mac Bob Becker wrote: Hmmm, I think in the last two games I played our smaller alliance beat the bigger mega alliance. Due to being smaller we worked together better and there was more to go around. I've made alot of friends in this game where I have only met in an email or on the few phone calls I make. Friendship and a joy of gaming is what I play this game for. I hope I do well but I am there to not only further my score but my allies, it's the way I like to play. So due to that I have an awful hard time saying no to someone who has asked me to join an alliance, especially if it is one of the folks I know and have enjoyed playing with in a previous game. There is also the thought that if your next door and I have just turned down your alliance then I will be the first on the hit list. I don't think limiting the alliance number will do anything but make us smarter in getting around the limitation. Bob Becker David Benepe wrote: Re: Mega-alliances My affinity for mega-alliances is the result of a situation where I was the third EB caught between two alliances, once led by Elliot and the other by Mike Wulkan. Although I held my own and stayed in the game without being toast (by playing the two sides off each other), ever since that game I have avoided isolation like the plague. That means joining first and asking questions later. Unless of course I can see an advantage to playing the middle for a while first. Brian Lease: A few comments in regard to your discussion. In response to Lee's assertions that players may lose their right to win by joining alliances with the" all for one and all for one philosophy" Elliot states : "But nobody says you have to just join blindly." I would assert that the lack of choice due to too few players and the mega-alliance mentality forces players to do just that. I can understand why a player would choose to resign when confronted with this situation. Elliot I'm sure is the exception but the reality is that there is almost always a "General" in the mega-alliance situation and it is a dictatorship. The experienced players pick and choose by turn 4 or 5 who will be on the in and who will be rolled over. Failure to conform to the General's thinking and you find yourself "purged". The only correction to the current situation is a change in rules. Mega-alliances are so prevalent because they work so damn well in building points and ships for its members. I refer to these large alliances as Point Factories. No one stands a chance against them when they are made up of seasoned players. They work better than independent players just like monopolies in business do. Perhaps the quickest and least intrusive solution might be to change victory totals. This seems logical to me since experienced players are achieving wins faster and faster preventing smaller alliances and independents from playing catch up. Increase the strike zone if you will. I would even go further to suggest that just like the multipliers in Battle Plan that different players and character types have different percentages they need to achieve for a victory total. A new player would be given a favorable multiplier while seasoned players like Elliot would get a handicap. Brian Lease Does anybody know when the last set of ratings for Star Web was published? Elliot: Gee, a handicap to the veterans – that might be interesting. I created a private game where we handicapped the character types and the victory conditions were different for each. As I remember the berserkers and merchants needed 20,000 while the Apostle only needed 7,500. As for the ratings – I think it was Dec. 2000. I would love to see a new set of ratings. Jeff Calkins asked: Elliot and Rick, I decided to pose this question to both of you in hopes one of you has the time to answer it. I am an apostle and have started a jihad with some Berserker allies. I know that we all get credit for population killed, but do we all have to actually make kills? For example, if I order an AP with a 2-ship fleet on a world that has a P-ship (a condition that would normally prevent me from killing anyone), but the Berserkers' robot attack kills all the population, do I still score points? Or does my AP attack have to have enough ships to overcome the home fleet? Rick answered: If any population are killed at the world, everyone who fires at population at that world gets "credit" for all the kills, even if it was a 1-ship fleet. Jeff: My Berserker ally asked me a similar question that I thought I'd forward to you: I have a similar question for the both of you. Say that we have a world with a full population of 50. If two fleets of 20 ships each do an AP and a third fleet does an R10 how many robots end up on the world? 7? 12? If the AP's happen first then each 20 ship attack kills 10 for a total of 20 dead and a remaining population of 30. The R10 then drops 20 robots, 8 are eliminated by the 30 population that is being killed. So we end with 12? If the AP and the R10 all happen at once do the 20 robots dropped fight all 50 population with 13 robots being eliminated? So the result is 7 robots on the world? Rick: They do NOT all happen at once, but I forget which happens first. You'll have to try it and see. Rick Elliot: I am not sure but I think the AP is first - so yes, you should end with 12 robots. Jeff: I'd appreciate any assistance you could give us on these questions. Thanks, Jeff Calkins (currently playing four games at once, but still not sure on all the rules!) Well, that's it for Volume 60. Don't be afraid to submit articles or suggestions. They don't have to be long. Address your correspondence to Elliot Hudes at somnos@compuserve.com