You must sign in to post. | win small, lose big :: Mar 8, 2007 @ 9:59pm |
|---|
 thirdparty
Joined: Dec 20, 2006
Posts: 279
Location: Eastern U.S.A. | There is only one command in Galcon: ordering ships to move from one planet to another. Therefore, the root of Galcon strategy is in having your ships at the planet where they're needed, when they're needed. (There's distinct strategy in diplomacy and psychology, but that's secondary.)
Where are ships needed? In marginal fights. You want to put ships in fights where they'll make the difference between winning or losing, between collecting income at the battle site for the next few seconds or not. In short, you want to "win small": if you use 200 ships for something where 150 will do, you've wasted the time of 50 ships that could have been doing something else. Conversely, you want your opponent's ships to be where they aren't needed; if something falls under attack and you can't defend it (or don't judge it worth defending), evacuate it so that he'll win big rather than winning small.
Win small, lose big: if you win four planets 25-20, and lose one planet 0-20, you win.
This advice applies when taking neutrals, when attacking an opponent's holdings, or when defending against an opponent's attack on your holdings. It applies with respect both to planets and to clusters of nearby planets. It even applies to those of your holdings which are not under attack: "winning small" in a fight that isn't happening means not having ships stationed there (although it's a good idea to keep a designated defense fleet in reach, that can be summoned if necessary). | | Re: win small, lose big :: Mar 10, 2007 @ 11:52pm |
|---|
philhassey 
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 797
Location: Zarcon | I've also been trying to follow this strategy - to some success. This one is more challenging for me, because sometimes I don't know how many ships are elsewhere ;) I'll have to work on keeping better track. | | Re: win small, lose big :: Mar 14, 2007 @ 8:10pm |
|---|
 duckandcover
Joined: Feb 7, 2007
Posts: 47 | Speed trumps efficiency. You simply waste too much time making those decisions. | | Re: win small, lose big :: Mar 14, 2007 @ 8:38pm |
|---|
thirdparty
Joined: Dec 20, 2006
Posts: 279
Location: Eastern U.S.A. | Well, yeah. My strategy posts are not so much things to do consciously as ideals to aim your intuitions at. | | Re: win small, lose big :: Mar 18, 2007 @ 9:53pm |
|---|
becephalus 
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 130
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota | Personally I calculate all my moves on pen and paper before I make them :) post updated on Mar 18, 2007 @ 9:54pm | | Re: win small, lose big :: Mar 18, 2007 @ 10:38pm |
|---|
philhassey
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 797
Location: Zarcon | I was thiking the abacus was in vogue. | | Re: win small, lose big :: Mar 21, 2007 @ 5:27pm |
|---|
duckandcover Joined: Feb 7, 2007
Posts: 47 | Only newbies use an abacus, all the proz use a use a slide rule. | | Re: win small, lose big :: Mar 22, 2007 @ 9:19am |
|---|
assassin437 Joined: Jan 29, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: Quantification | Speed trumps efficiency D&C?
How exactly does that work? |
You must sign in to post. |
