No way to pause a game once it’s started, so I guess the games are just a bit bogged down by Christmas preparations - 6 ticks per 48 hours is the technical minimum.
Two games already look relatively decided, however at the Legendary Level @plug versus the challenger @FinrodFelagund still seems wide open. Any chance you guys see for someone to come out on top before the new year?
My game vs @FinrodFelagund is still continuing steadily - it’s very evenly balanced, although I feel it’s not a stalemate. However, if we’re out of time we could call it a draw. Not sure what that means for the LLL trophy.
No worries , as long as both players are submitting turns, I just couldn’t tell.
Indeed, it would make the game much more weapons based, but as higher weapons are less destructive to the attacking side, I feel that when a player is in a disadvantaged position and has a local ship advantage yet a general ship advantage, they are unable to attack because equal level of 4 weapons means that unless there is a high advantage, they are unable to push back. This would result in players able to make more strategic plays and comebacks in the area.
Again, the weapons advantage doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. We’ve already nullified exp, so no one can get an advantage per chance, but the weapons buff would increase science demand and change up the game. It’s not bad, just different.
Because from my experience in this games, its whoever gets a lead in credit production first wins, because lead in ship productions are marginal early game and therefore have little impact. I feel this would give another aspect to spice up the game.
I think one thing you guys have neglected to discuss is that if weapons are an option to research, weapons become the ONLY thing that is researched. It trumps the other tech too much and makes research choices feel less important.
I agree with this. I just played a friendly with @Tanktress. Weps were not locked. I got a weps lead, and because she did not keep up it completely negated an otherwise reasonable strategy. So if one player gets the lead, the other must immediately counter, and off we go, just as @Solfyre stated.
With weps locked, multiple infrastructure strategies are possible. For one player starting with banking works. With me, I try to get ahead on ship count. And tf becomes more important for ind as well as gates.
Totally agree with @Solfyre, @wfmcgillicuddy and of course @HULK. Unlocked weapons would change the entire 1v1. Whoever gets the next level of weapons first has a huge advantage in time. Doesn‘t matter at which tick this would be: Tick 50, 100 or 200… it would lead into a big advantage to the first player and from this moment on it only would be valid to research the next level of weapons.
I disagree with you. I, and other players, too, have managed it several times to equalize a gap in eco. As long as the star count is even, it‘s not impossible to close that gap! And if you close it, you will not fall behind in indu and science as well.
In case you fall behind in eco because there already is a gap in star count, you also fall behind in indu and science. That would rather not allow you, to research the next level of weapons first. The other player would be first and your chances of making a comeback would be worse than they would be with locked weapons.
Plus, weapons 5 (next level weapons in case of LLL) would need 1440 points in research. That is not a tech you would go for right from the start because that would cost you the game immediately. Would be more a tech you go for in mid game, so the starting game would still be dominated by the others techs, like they do ATM.
And TBH, it‘s not about ship count and ship production. It‘s more about expansion, how you use your ships and your infrastructure in the right way (including warp gates etc.). In my games against @Solfyre, @HULK or @Karmadrome I lost with lead in both: ship count and ship production. There is so much more in these 1v1 than just raw numbers.
So from my point of view, unlocked weapons would not benefit the 1v1 games. They would rather limit them after a couple of cycles when researching weapons would not cost you a lot of time any longer…
My initial strategy of denying my opponent the access to a flank worked - at least temporarily. Enough to gain an edge. But I forgot to buy econ before first production. I thought that’s it, but for some reason I could recover. We both missed some turns, but I was in the lead and then my opponent was kicked due to inactivity.
You know, I played one game where I forgot to purchase econ in the first cycle as well and it didn’t hurt me at all. In fact, because I was able to get terra 2 by the time the second cycle came about, I might have covered the initial losses with the newfound savings. I’ve wondered in the past if that could be a strategy to employ… But I can’t seem to make it seem financially sound when doing the math. There is also no way to account for extra gained stars in the mean time when trying to build any sort equation about which way is better.
I disagree with this. If we had weapons starting higher, say level 5 or 6, and weapons tech research expensive (say 2-3x as long as terra or so) research progressively more expensive, it would mean that at a point weapons would be an option, but not the best option all the time.
Even so, we could play around with the costs, base techs, and figure out a balance for unlocked weapons. IMO it wouldn’t be too hard to find a balance.
Missing econ in the first cycle doesn’t make much of a difference. Especially if you are going to complete Terra 2 before the second cycle. At the end of the first cycle, you can get econ on only a few stars for under 10 credits, so econ vs no econ, just as long as you save enough cash to buy sufficient econ before the next cycle, you shouldn’t be much worse off.
Here’s where I don’t think it makes sense: That econ missed in the first turn would have yielded 10 credits per point. So, you could think of it like each point you buy in turn 1 costs 10 credits less than if you had bought it in turn 2. An upgrade in terra reduces the price of things by about 10%, so the reduced cost of an econ that would have cost 30 now is only 27. So the savings on econ with terra 2 is minimal compared to buying it in cycle 1 vs cycle 2. I usually buy any econ under 30 without hesitation and then maybe even more that first cycle.
The only reason to hold back on buying as much econ as you can in cycle 1 is that you will acquire more stars in cycle 2 that may be much cheaper to upgrade(and of course saving money for industry up front and extra science).
Does that make sense @spymort ? I just want to make sure my rational is right.
In regards to weapons… Early game when ship counts are low, higher starting weapon levels give a bigger advantage to the defensive player who can leave 1 ship on a star. Conquest is hard already. Higher weapons levels does help reduce the effect of the defender bonus, which helps/promotes attacking, which in my opinion is good for the game. So, there are definitely good and bad reasons to start with weapon levels higher.
As far as being able to research weapons… This will probably always be a point of discussion. I personally don’t think I would like it. I think of 1v1 almost like a chess match. Each ship has a set value that you know and doesn’t change over the course of the game, other than the slow rate of inflation. Weapons research is the only direct tech whose effect is immediate. Manu adds to ship production and has a big effect over time. Terra is the same, but is dealing with reduced costs over time. Weapons changes the value of every ship right now–which is why weapons tech should be the only tech researched when the game is on the line in normal NP games.
1v1 format is meant to put tactical decisions and strategy upfront. One could argue that deciding when to research weapons is part of the strategy side of things… In my humble opinion, it is just overshadows everything else a bit too much. I like not having it be something to think about. That way, its generally the tactical decisions that turn the tide in games vs hitting on a level of weapons at just the right time.
Again, these are all just my opinions. 
Given your intergalactic standing, I for one am taking copious notes 
Back to topic:
I just claimed victory in my game against @spymort. Tough game where I didn‘t thought I could win the game for a long time, but I managed to land a lucky warp gate attack which allowed me to take back the lead step by step… GG!
GGs all round. Yep, I conceded. Had the advantage, was on track to victory but a single gate let Dragonwing slip through and he was able to thwart all my future efforts. But I learnt some key, yet simple, lessons…
For the record, I do think that missing Eco in the first cycle is a significant setback in almost all circumstances, though not decisive on its own in most cases.
As for the Weapons discussion, I think there were some good arguments made from both sides. With Crazy Expensive research and a starting level of 4, prioritizing it too soon can cause one to be overwhelmed by eco and ship numbers from the other side, rendering the weapon advantage moot. This resonated with me the most though:
However, I just randomized all available settings for the poll next round and it came up, so if enough people prefer it over the other options, Crazy Expensive Weapons may become available as a one-time thing.
Results of LLL 11/2021
- @plug [GB-5] vs. @FinrodFelagund [DE-4] (currently 77 to 73 stars)
- @Solfyre [US-2] d. @BelSon [AU-11]
- @DarkDragonwing [DE-9] d. @spymort [AU-15]
- @Dr_Gaming [RS-10] d. @Macomber [CA-16]
- @Tanktress [US-18] d. @Sneferu [GB-22]
- @wint3ermute [DE-12] d. @kinghuang [CA-14]
- @Lex [26] d. @iippabella
- @Vernitrax [PL-23] d. @Kwhwwymwn [FR]
- @OinkBark [US] d. @Bruce (w/o)
- @HabitableFiction [US] d. @gaz123
- @wfmcgillicuddy [US] d. @Skilly146
- @Azo d. @blank1 [NZ]
- @sarcophagus d. @AvacadoGuy
Sign up in the linked thread for the next round! (Sign-ups for the concluded round will not carry over to the next one automatically to make sure only active players are considered in the match-ups.)
Count me in.
Count me in as well…