STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://www.flyingmoose.ca) VOLUME 82 December 2004 CONTENTS Feature Article - So What's New on the Starweb Scene? Questions - Biggest battles, biggest blunders SEDG Web Page URL The Swap Corner Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE So What's New on the Starweb Scene? By Elliot Hudes The Starweb scene seems to be very settled these days. The universe appears to be populated by grizzled old vets playing for camaraderie or diversion and not only to conquer the universe or to rack up a VPT or score (all very commendable goals seen in the very young). There has been a criticism leveled by many players and one directed towards me recently. I played the pirate who cared little for plunder; instead I thrilled to sounds of battle and I was lambasted that I gave up my scoring perogative to some unknown player who I may not even have allied with yet. Too true. That is not how you play I was admonished! But, alas, it is. This is why so many players have yelled over the years that the scoring needs adjustment because to play well within the current rules you must absolutely kill the merchants. The smaller the number of them in a galaxy the more your genocidal need must grow. Similarly alliances cannot be so tight as to allow you to subjugate your drive to win just to join one. Berserkers who are able to secure multiple Homeworld industrial bases should be targets and Pirates need to exercise their plunderable appetites voraciously. So how do we get out of this rut? Some of us have enjoyed joining games with specific goals in mind. Some are very laudable like helping the new guy learn the game, do well and have fun. Sometimes to even win their first victory pin. Sometimes I join a game and decide on turn 1 that I'm going to win! Other times it's to promote the underdog. Recently I enjoyed banding together 5 players far apart on the web with few common interests and one self confessed Starweb Loner in the interests of opposing a nascent alliance of 4 who had invited me and my sole ally into their alliance. I also had proof that they had many other invitations out there on the web for their alliance. Playing David to their Goliath was fun. Rounding up this rag tag group actually stopped them from becoming the Mega-Alliance they threatened to become. Unfortunately their merchant still slid into first place despite our plans. What I'm looking for is a Variant that will set you thinking along new paths on how to win. I want it to allow you to ally but not necessarily have you submerge your goals for your allies'. So I guess the point of this whole discussion is to put forward another SW Variant for us to play in. I feel a need to do something about the point disparity and since I've already run a few handicapped games I'm thinking of goals that make the score superfluous. I enjoy that TV game show 'Who's Line is it Anyway' where the host, Drew Carie often says "Where the points don't matter". So I'm proposing a game similar to the Bitter End Starweb Games. Success will depend entirely on the number of worlds you own to win. This will allow for more territoriality and perhaps a more aggressive game. How to get players to avoid giving their worlds up to another player and yet remain in the game is difficult. I'm thinking that hindering communication by making it an Anonymous game will eliminate such collusion. If you are letting your neighbor gobble you up without being able to discuss an alliance it will ultimately result in you being eliminated in this style of game. Another thought is about the character mix. I think we need characters that have some advantage at obtaining worlds. So obviously the Pirate, with their capture ability, is a must. The ability to capture ships will result in their increased ability to capture more territory. We must include berserkers for their robotic capture powers and Apostles for conversions. I suppose even a merchant may be attempted. They do have some early game advantage at getting up to full production capacity utilizing fewer ships, which make early invasion and assimilation possible. Of course later in the game the 30 ships they save hauling becomes a drop in the bucket and they will no longer have any advantage. Still, I would allow this character type if anyone wants to take a crack at it. Obviously the Art Collector is useless in this type of game and we should discard this character type for this game. The EB I think is equally useless unless they are left along long enough that they can build industry for future use in the game. I think it highly unlikely that the EB would survive long enough to mount the invasion nor have enough time/turns to achieve success. So unless I hear otherwise from some over zealous EB fan I am going to leave this character type out too. The qualities of the 'Anonymous' game state is fabulous for limiting alliances and good for the busy gamer unable to handle yet another game with its torrents of email diplomacy. It also allows you to see how far you can get on your own without staunch allies who protect your back and give you more than they receive in return. Being anonymous also introduces another factor. I have not played 'Bitter End' but I believe the end conditions are when one player owns half the universe. In an Anonymous Variant this could lead to a very long game if you get to the point where there are only 2 or 3 players left. Without allies willing to give up territory for a buddy this game could drag on. I would like to say you have won if you dominate the universe and that will be if you own over one third of the territory. You then would be the 'Alpha Race'. So you must own exactly 86 worlds. I'm unsure if FBI software can track this end condition. If not, then the player who achieves this must email FBI or myself and declare themselves the winners. If more than one player satisfies this condition on the same turn the one with the most worlds will be declared the winner. The other players will be ranked by descending number of worlds owned and the points don't matter. Of course as a private game it will be an unranked game. (Note to Rick/FBI: Can you track the Victory Conditions = 86 worlds? Can you rank the players as I've outlined?) So to summarize - It's the SEDG ANONYMOUS NOT SO BITTER END STARWEB GAME. Victory conditions are to own 86 worlds and you can be a Pirate, Berserker, Apostle or Merchant. Interested? Then send your request to be in the game to me - Elliot Hudes at somnos@flyingmoose.ca. DO NOT SEND SIGN UPS TO FBI OR RICK - they will only get our list of players when I have a full game and they are not organizing this. I require your - Name, Account Number, preferred email address and Character Type. DO NOT GIVE ME A GAME NAME - THIS WILL BE ASSIGNED BY FBI IN THE USUAL ANONYMOUS STYLE. You are not considered in the game unless I receive all of the above information. I shall submit the game request when I have 15 players and you will get a confirmation by email. If we get fewer players we may adjust the victory conditions. I hope to meet you on the web. Elliot ---------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? Last Issue I posed: Recently I have been asking for people to exercise bragging rights on stuff such as large pirate captures. Anyone have a story about the largest battle seen? I seem to remember one where a pirate showed up with over 1000 ships and did NOT make a pirate capture. I have not received any feedback on this question but I would still be interested in hearing some tall tails. How about your biggest blunder? I remember one pitched battle where I transferred ships to the enemy pirate allowing him to blow away many of my ships and capture the survivors. The next turn he asked 'What the hell do you call that maneuver?" I calmly explained that my fleet captain had mutinied ;-). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 STARWEB ANALYZER V1.5 - It's on the web site and it's no longer a Beta! Go get it! As before - registered clients of any previous V1.x version can upgrade for free. www.flyingmoose.ca I'm sorry to say there hasn't been a lot of movement with The Starweb Analyzer V2.0. It is being built in the Dotnet framework and has a lot of potential for neat new features but at present it isn't as advanced as V1.5. It is being alpha tested by a few diehard fans and I will report more about it when we have gotten a little further along. Elliot ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Jack Fulmer writes: Hi El. I am currently in one other variant of Starweb that I did not mention in my previous correspondence. The lack of mention was because the game is an anonymous one. However, it is definitely on its last turn now so it will be over in a couple of weeks. When it is ended I will write a brief note to you about it. It is a one-time only variant that I do not believe was ever played before this game. So I think that some of the other Starweb players will find it interesting. -snip- El, the additional variant SW game that I previously mentioned to you has finished. It was an anonymous, no-merchant, multi-SW game. Normal anonymous multi-SW rules applied except that no one could have a Merchant as one of their characters. (SW-AM/230 Anonymous, no-Merchant, multi-Starweb game). El, I have not been in touch with any of the other players. If you can convince one or more of the other players to write their account(s) of the game I would greatly appreciate it. I would eagerly read them. Editor: Hi Jack. I've sent out emails to the players whose email addresses I have but have not heard back. If I don't I can still publish your side of the game in a future SEDG. I'm still hoping that this note will spur one of them to write in. Well, that's it for Volume 82. 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