Bridge vs. Bridge
Has anyone played a real BvB game (3+ humans vs. 3+ humans) yet with the new 1.2 version? How did the strategy/tactics work?
page
1
2 replies
On 12-11-2010 we set up two full bridges at my house and played five humans vs six humans. Everyone had a great time. Thom Robertson was present and observed our play.
In evaluating strategy/tactics I'll call player Space Cruiser Artemis ships SCAs and AI ships AIs.
The strategy for BvB was quite different from BvAI, since the existing scenarios at the time were not designed for BvB. Obviously the space stations were friendly to both SCAs, while the AIs were hostile to all of the stations. Both crews wanted a constant supply of fuel and weapons, especialy nukes. This meant that both SCAs defended all of the bases from AIs while simultaneously trying to trap the other SCA. It was challenging and fun, but the scenario didn't make sense and there was constant pressure to cooperate instead of compete.
The terrain was okay. Actually mines and nebulae were absolutely necessary to making the BvB game enjoyable.
To make BvB strategy more interesting I suggest two sets of bases, and possible two sets of AIs, one set friendly to each SCA. I realize that friendly AIs could mean a lot of coding, so I suggest that friendly/unfriendly bases would be a significant enough change to make the BvB game awesome. But friendly AIs would add the possibity of important duties for the communications station, as well as scenarios for grand battles and convoy escorting.
On the tactical end, the best fun came from hiding in nebulae, sneaking through nebulae, shooting nukes through nebulae, etc. The long range scan covers so much space that the only way to make BvB interesting is to use the nebulae. Any time a ship is outside of a nebula, BvB combat is like playing chess where both players can see the whole board but have only one chess piece to move.
So to make BvB tactics more interesting, I suggest decreasing the capacity of the long range scan, and even the science scan.
In evaluating strategy/tactics I'll call player Space Cruiser Artemis ships SCAs and AI ships AIs.
The strategy for BvB was quite different from BvAI, since the existing scenarios at the time were not designed for BvB. Obviously the space stations were friendly to both SCAs, while the AIs were hostile to all of the stations. Both crews wanted a constant supply of fuel and weapons, especialy nukes. This meant that both SCAs defended all of the bases from AIs while simultaneously trying to trap the other SCA. It was challenging and fun, but the scenario didn't make sense and there was constant pressure to cooperate instead of compete.
The terrain was okay. Actually mines and nebulae were absolutely necessary to making the BvB game enjoyable.
To make BvB strategy more interesting I suggest two sets of bases, and possible two sets of AIs, one set friendly to each SCA. I realize that friendly AIs could mean a lot of coding, so I suggest that friendly/unfriendly bases would be a significant enough change to make the BvB game awesome. But friendly AIs would add the possibity of important duties for the communications station, as well as scenarios for grand battles and convoy escorting.
On the tactical end, the best fun came from hiding in nebulae, sneaking through nebulae, shooting nukes through nebulae, etc. The long range scan covers so much space that the only way to make BvB interesting is to use the nebulae. Any time a ship is outside of a nebula, BvB combat is like playing chess where both players can see the whole board but have only one chess piece to move.
So to make BvB tactics more interesting, I suggest decreasing the capacity of the long range scan, and even the science scan.
"Damn the torpedoes! Four bells, Captain Drayton!"
(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
As Thom mentioned in the News section, on 1-29-2011 we got two full bridge crews together and played Artemis 1.3. We discovered a few bugs in 1.3, some of which only affect multi-bridge play. We eventually gave up and went to single bridge play, which was less buggy.
There was once really interesting two-bridge incident, mentioned in Ferrett Steinmetz's Artemis review here:
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1578022.html
We had two ships in co-operative combat. Without waiting for orders from the captain, the other ship's weapons officers fired a nuke into an enemy formation when my ship was too close. My ship was destroyed as collateral damage. We all screamed bloody murder, and the other ships captain chewed out her weapons officer.
There was once really interesting two-bridge incident, mentioned in Ferrett Steinmetz's Artemis review here:
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1578022.html
We had two ships in co-operative combat. Without waiting for orders from the captain, the other ship's weapons officers fired a nuke into an enemy formation when my ship was too close. My ship was destroyed as collateral damage. We all screamed bloody murder, and the other ships captain chewed out her weapons officer.
"Damn the torpedoes! Four bells, Captain Drayton!"
(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
Login below to reply:
