View Full Version : Balance questions for moo I


kyrub
Sep 01, 2007, 06:35 PM
Hi,
I'm new to this last-but-well-breathing moo forum.

The reason I've come here is:
I'm actually doing some relatively SCARCE hex-editing to tweak the original moo I to make the replay more challenging and to add some new spice in the space. Facilitate some AI paths. Even more balance for weapons, techs, specials, armors etc. (is ti possible? I guess so)

(Yeah, it's a sacriledge. I knew I shouldn't touch IT. Please, don't stone me.)

I will not give my opinions ahead, even if I have 80% of the concept done, edited, tried. Still doubting some of my changes...
So I'd like to consult the basic balance questions:

1) RACES:
Is there any race which is overpowered, if compared the to others? (when AI-played)
Who are average (when AI-played)?
Who are the minions (when AI-played)?

2) WEAPONS
Which weapon is overpowered (you guessed it, I want to weaken your nicest toy - basically because you know the game imbalance but AI is dumb)?
Which weapon is (almost useless)?
Which one you never use?

Where should be the missile balance? Scatter packs, early missles, mid-game missles, end-game missles?

Torpedoes? Used or not?

3) DEFENSIVE

Does anybody use "TYPE II" armor? HOw could look a tweaked one?
Are ECMs any good? Do you research them, ecm 1 or ecm 2, or even ecm 5?
Shouldnt be maneuver more expensive?
Shields in the mid, end game become almost useless, too weak and too bulky?

4) TECHS
Are there some techs I should erase out of the game?
Some that need to appear earlier - later?

5) SPECIALS

Overpowered x Hardly useful



If you answer, give always the number of the topic ahead of your ideas.

Thanks for any effort

@kyrub

vmxa
Sep 01, 2007, 07:40 PM
There have been some good discussion on these topics. You may want to post this at RBC as well.

http://www.realmsbeyond.net/

Sullla
Sep 02, 2007, 02:48 PM
In terms of races, the Psilons are far and away the most powerful in Master of Orion. Both when played by the player, and when played by the AI. Aside from the brains, the AI also tends to perform better than average with the Meklar and (sometimes) the Klackons. On the other side, the Mrrshans are by far the worst race, and form the perennial losers in most games. There's usually enough variation in how the races play that I don't see the need to change things, but hey - it's your game. Tinker away. :)

I have no recommendation with regards to weapons. There are no "bad" weapons in Master or Orion, and the AI does a pretty good job of using them. The best way to improve AI play would be to get them to use speed better, so they don't have their Stacks of Doom crawling around at warp 1 late in the game. Even unbeatable AI fleets are readily danced around when they don't move very fast. Heck just look at this picture:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/12069/AGA21-3.jpg

Negative Fleet Bug alert! Even one of those Huge ships (of which the Psilons have 32,000) was enough to take over one of my planets. But I was able to maneuver around their uber fleet and still win this game. If you're going to work on the AI, make sure their ships always have the best possible engines!

I would most certainly not touch the technology system at all, as it's by far the best feature of the entire game. Why mess with perfection? And shields, useless in the mid- to late-game? :crazyeye: Most certainly not! Auto-repair Huge ships with top of the line shields are one of the best ways to take down both enemy fleets and bases (not the only way, but certainly a more than viable option). If you're going up against Scatter Pack VII or X bases, you'd better bring some shields or expect to take heavy losses!

Anyway, just some food for thought. There are a lot of different ways to play this game effectively, so it's not surprising that I don't agree with all of your conclusions. :)

kyrub
Sep 02, 2007, 05:52 PM
Thanks for first suggestions, Sulla.

There are no "bad" weapons in Master or Orion,

Hey, come on, have you seen this weapon/space table in moo walkthrough (on gamefaqs and elsewhere)? Merculites are crap against scatter packs V and you get them later in res tree. In fact everything sucks against them in first 1/3 of the game, unless you got bulky shields VI, tech 20 or so. :rolleyes:

And why does everybody recomend autogauss, hmm? Overpowered, i guess. No contra in the game.

And hardly usable heavies... they're so bulky. I've seen only twice in a game a good intelligent use of them (with warp dissipator, that is - but that's hardly fantastic)

So, more arguments, suggestions, please. I'm not that cheap - "genious design".

Good points about the races, will discuss later. I'd basically like to slightly strengthen most of the races (some more, mrrs, buls, dars), to make them all more competitive.
@kyrub

vmxa
Sep 02, 2007, 07:06 PM
If I have ships with mercs and you have ships with scatter pack V and we both have the same techs for engines and such, you have a problem. I hit you before you can hit me.

IOW these weapons have different functions and are each useful at points and not so useful at other points.

Autogauss fire 3 times, if I remember correctly, this makes them better than all preceding beams for ship combat. I would not say over powered as they are fairly late in the game.

Not sure I understand what point you are making with "heavies", which I presume are huge hulls?

I would say that Psilons are best in AI hands, but in humans I would prefer Klacs, especially in a small map. The brains need too much room and time to get to the point where they are strong. I put them as second best for humans, unless a large or huge map.

kyrub
Sep 02, 2007, 07:40 PM
Autogauss is overpowered cause it halves the shields as well.
And has a great damage/space ratio. Tech: 32. Definitely midgame. Maybe later midgame for those who are quickwinners.
No contra, I repeat. (I'd shoot him down with overpowered s-pack VII ;) )


You may have a point with quick mercs. But look at these dam/space ratios:

Scatter V 11 31/ 66(+0) 2.5 .455 .379 .303 .227 .152 .076 -- -- -- -- -- --
Merculite 14 35/ 49(+2) 3.0 .204 .184 .163 .143 .122 .102 .082 .061 .020 -- -- --
Stinger 18 67/ 88(+3) 3.5 .170 .159 .148 .136 .125 .114 .102 .091 .068 .045 .023 --


once I have many ships with s-packs I'll win anyway at the end (if you don't kill 1/2 of me in the first turn), they are 2x-3x as effective. They're more useful than mercs, stingers, pulsons against any shield lower than 5 (tech 20!). Some 85% AI ships are like these in my games in first 1/3 of the game.
Mercs, stings etc. suck against large numbers / s-pack are great with a good comp. And they get actually cheaper than stings.

Tweaked s-packs will have lower damages, I'm inclined to this idea.
(I have to rebalance base defense though)

By "heavies" I meant 2-range weaps. Here we may differ, I'm not sure bout their utility. I find them largely ineffective, bulky. The game uses not very well this interesting combat feature (range firing), IMO.

kyrub

vmxa
Sep 02, 2007, 10:13 PM
kyrub
"No contra, I repeat. (I'd shoot him down with overpowered s-pack VII"

VII are another story, we were talking about V's.


"You may have a point with quick mercs. But look at these dam/space ratios:

once I have many ships with s-packs I'll win anyway at the end (if you don't kill 1/2 of me in the first turn), they are 2x-3x as effective. They're more useful than mercs, stingers, pulsons against any shield lower than 5 (tech 20!). Some 85% AI ships are like these in my games in first 1/3 of the game.
Mercs, stings etc. suck against large numbers / s-pack are great with a good comp. And they get actually cheaper than stings."

I guess how useful a tactic or weapon is depends on the game and situation. If you play on impossible level, you tend to find that Scatter pack V's have a short life span.

There are very good for a time on defense of a planet, but soon they will not do the job, unless you have massive numbers of them.

I do not put them on ships as they require too much space and are not very effective on planets bases. You have a hard time getting close enough to use them.

I seldom use them on ship to ship battles either, NPG's on smalls will do quite well and are cheaper.

I don't think it is useful to talk about how ones ships fare Vs the AI as it is a given that they will do a poor job of design and use of what ever ships they have.

They rely on the bonus they have at impossible to offset your superior strategy.

Ok heavy versions of beamers. I seldom use them, but do on occasion come in handy. Maybe when the Ai is using replusor beams or you know you can stay away from their beams with a range 2 attack and they do not have them.

Or if you are using repulsors and do not want to get close enough for them to shoot you. A tactic I seldom use, but is an option.

As Sulla said, you have many ways to play and that is why the game is still around. Not because you can get a down loaded version, as many games like that exist and are not being played or on boards.

Sullla
Sep 03, 2007, 11:59 AM
kyrub, I initially thought you were being sarcastic with your post, but it seems as though you meant it seriously. So... here are my responses. :)

Hey, come on, have you seen this weapon/space table in moo walkthrough (on gamefaqs and elsewhere)? Merculites are crap against scatter packs V and you get them later in res tree. In fact everything sucks against them in first 1/3 of the game, unless you got bulky shields VI, tech 20 or so. :rolleyes:

First off, referring to a "gamefaqs walkthrough" only makes me laugh heartily. Those things are absolute rubbish. Most of the contributors to those guides weren't even playing on Impossible! :crazyeye: And no offense, but I trust my own observations and experience far more than some rigid formula that attempts to calculate damage over hull space, divided by tech level. Like all good strategy games, Master of Orion values flexibility and the ability to think on the fly over adherance to formulaic play.

I agree that I would prefer Scatter Pack V missiles to Merculites in most situations. Still, that's a far cry from saying that the weapons need to be rebalanced! The AIs on Impossible aren't shy about racing up the tech tree, and they can get to the higher shield techs pretty fast. If you miss out on Stingers (or, heaven forbid, those AND Pulsons) Merculites can save your bacon bigtime. I recall one game where the AI was sending ships with Class VII shields against me, and I didn't have any missiles better than Hyper-Xs, doing 1 measly point of damage with each shot. I would have killed for Merculites! :lol: (My Scatter Pack Vs were completely useless in this situation.) I've also used Merculites to bust planetary defenses on occasion, when missing out on bombs, while I've never done so with the early Scatter Packs.

In short, the dynamic nature of the tech tree makes removing or altering the weapons balance very dicey, to say the least. The missile techs are in really good shape, as far as I can tell. There seems plenty of flexibility between the two, without need to change one or the other.

I can guarantee though that building huge fleets of Scatter Pack V missile ships is going to achieve very little on Impossible. :mischief:

And why does everybody recomend autogauss, hmm? Overpowered, i guess. No contra in the game.

Umm, what? :confused: The Gauss Autocannon is a nice weapon, but overpowered? No way! In half the games you won't even see it show up in the tech tree, and even when it does, it's not noticeably stronger than most of the other weapons at the same tech level. By the time you reach tech level 32, you can really make due with just about any reasonably current weapon anyway. I'm just not seeing this as an issue...

And hardly usable heavies... they're so bulky. I've seen only twice in a game a good intelligent use of them (with warp dissipator, that is - but that's hardly fantastic)

Have you ever tried combining the Heavy version of beam weapons with a Repulsor Beam? I'll let that speak for itself. ;) Heavy Fusion Beams or Phasors can also do a decent job of taking down planetary bases if you're really hurting on missiles and bombs. (It's not easy, but I *HAVE* done it.)

Good points about the races, will discuss later. I'd basically like to slightly strengthen most of the races (some more, mrrs, buls, dars), to make them all more competitive.
@kyrub

Hey, it's your mod. As I said, tinker away. But the racial balance in this game is truly superb - I don't think there's much to be gained here. Some races are a little stronger, some a little weaker, but they all are distinctly unique and can all be played to good effect. Isn't that the sign of a good game? :cool:

vmxa
Sep 03, 2007, 02:53 PM
Now if you wanted to do something really cool, fix a few of the bugs or improve the graphics, not change them, just make them look like they are not pre VGA.

kyrub
Sep 03, 2007, 06:09 PM
Now if you wanted to do something really cool, fix a few of the bugs or improve the graphics, not change them, just make them look like they are not pre VGA.

Not my pot of tea, vmxa. I actually like the old look of the game. It's something you won't see elsewhere. (Haven't you read Lem's Pirx, the story about the obsolete robot?)


But I have to revert to our scatter pack / mercs question ... and honestly and humbly admit that I was almost completely wrong. And you were (almost) right.
You're stubborn resistance made me recount an "ideal" encounter of equivalent s-pack V / mercs ships (BTW you are wrong about bulkiness of spacks, they are very close to mercs and equi to stings). First strike of mercs and (importantly) their better built-in computer makes them almost on par with s-packs. But: mercs will still lose by a small margin. (they still are better, in my eyes, much more universal, but maybe you're right about different strategies n players..)
All in all, I decided to spare Spacks V. Will look at VII.

@sulla, thanks for other thoughts: beam weapons I consider most unbalancing are
Auto Blaster {tech 28, 3*(4-16), good against most ships, and against masses to some extent}
Autogauss {tech 32, 4*(7-10) and halves shields, like ablaster, but lasts till endgame}
Pulse Phaser {best and small beam in the game, and ONLY tech 38, 3*(5-20)}

Too good:
Megabolt (underrated one, really good cause smallish, and comp bonus. incredible)
and - surprise! - Ion Cannon (3-8, minimal weapon, great throughout the game; this one I actually discovered by playing and than found in the "laughable" table as well; maybe it's not as laughable, it's called math, you know, the thing that is behind the game)

Unbalancing they are not because of raw power/space ratio, but because they come too early in the game. This, in fact destroys any big advatage of Mrrshans going up the tech tree (and they are poor). Some of the early and midgame toys are just too good.

And some weapons are poor:
- Mauler :lol:
- endgame missiles (take a lot of space)
- Antimatter torpedoes, stupidly poor
- and heavies should be smaller if not used only in the special cases you mentioned (which i wish)

I think that torpedoes are not well implemented in the game. In fact that is one of two big changes I want to do: revamp torpedo idea.
1) There will be one torp in the early game (instead of one Hyper rocket type)
2) they will be huge (power-bad miniaturization), will fit only on large, or better on huge ships
3) will have bad bad damage, like torpedoes do (to "sink" a ship - minitorpedo (early game) 4*15)
4) they will all be like Hellfire (hits all four shields) - ineffective against planets, ineffective against small and medium ships (large overkill)
5) wil move slowly, have great target comp (+5 and more), and very long range (10 and more)
6) will do great against big ships, poor counter with shields
7) counter weapon - missile boat with quick missiles to destroy the torpedo boat before torps get to their aim; counter tactics - run with one stack, attack with the other


As for races, I really disagree with you sulla. In fact if you admit that some are poor (Mrrs and Dars), they should be change.
Not because of player, but because AI can't play them correctly. That's my point. I want more "natural" challenge, more game experience with good opponents. I already tried tweaked Bulrathis, they are now brilliant opponents, hurrying for combat transporters. Dangerous.


Sorry for long post. And thanks for your ideas, even if you don't find my pers project exciting, they help me.

@kyrub

Zed-F
Sep 04, 2007, 09:55 AM
1) RACES:
Is there any race which is overpowered, if compared the to others? (when AI-played)
Who are average (when AI-played)?
Who are the minions (when AI-played)?

Psilons are easily the strongest, both for humans and for AI. That said, facing up against a strong Psilon opponent on Impossible is one of the most consistent ways of getting a challenge out of the game. If you really want to muck with them, I would tone down their research bonus a tad, but not too much. A light touch is good here. I'd rather see Psilons that are a little bit too strong, than Psilons that are too vanilla.

Otherwise, some races are stronger than others, but too much homogeneity isn't desirable either. Computer tends to do better with Meks but that's more because they are most likely to up and steamroller someone. Klacks are as powerful economically as Meks in the computer's hand but their AI makes them less likely to just roll over an opponent.

Mrrshan are weakest but this is more a function of their race relations & tech penalties than anything else. Their excellent weapons tech doesn't really help them establish an empire much and is largely useless thanks to their poor construction tech. I would throw them a bone by giving them average construction tech, and maybe thinking about readjusting the race relations a bit so that they aren't hated by everyone.

2) WEAPONS
Which weapon is overpowered (you guessed it, I want to weaken your nicest toy - basically because you know the game imbalance but AI is dumb)?
Which weapon is (almost useless)?
Which one you never use?

Where should be the missile balance? Scatter packs, early missles, mid-game missles, end-game missles?

Torpedoes? Used or not?
Missile balance -- as the game goes on, missiles are intentionally supposed to start getting less and less important. The early game is a missile war and as time goes on the emphasis shifts to more close ranged weapons as ships speed up. This is deliberate on the part of the game designers, and part of an overall shift from defensive trench warfare to dynamic offensive blitzing warfare over the course of the game. The shift from defensive to offensive primacy helps finish games so that the player can get on to the next challenge, and is one aspect of the game that helps encourage replayability. Therefore, I would leave the missile balance alone.

I would not worry about rebalancing individual weapons and systems so much as classes of weapons that are currently unused because they are relatively pointless. Putting in tweaks here and there to make every weapon fit a specific 'effectiveness curve' weakens the impact of having a random tree to start with. There's no feeling of relief when you get ScatterV to offset early defensive concerns, nor of anxiousness when you fail to get it.

As such, I'm mostly happy with the weapons as they are, with the exception of the torpedoes. I would design torpedoes as a niche weapon specifically to counter large and huge ships. They might also have some secondary ability as a bomb substitute to break heavily shielded worlds, but this would be a secondary ability at most. I would start by tripling the energy damage they do, and tripling or quadrupling the base size and base cost, but leaving the power figure alone. The biggest problem with torpedoes as it stands is that they don't miniaturize well at all, so any solution to improve the usefulness of torpedoes would have to take this into account by reducing the overall power burden torpedoes impose.

3) DEFENSIVE

Does anybody use "TYPE II" armor? HOw could look a tweaked one?
Are ECMs any good? Do you research them, ecm 1 or ecm 2, or even ecm 5?
Shouldnt be maneuver more expensive?
Shields in the mid, end game become almost useless, too weak and too bulky?
I will sometimes use the type II armour on a huge auto-repair ship if the point of the ship is to be a damage sponge and maybe lug in a few specials, not carry lots of guns around. I get the impression that it's supposed to be a really cheap but space-inefficient option. Rather than fiddle with the cost and bulkiness of the option, I would give it +100% hull points instead of +50% hull points and see if that makes it seem more viable. Note that I don't think the AI ever uses this option, though.

ECM is good and worth researching for use on missile bases, but generally pointless on ships. It's far too expensive and bulky for what it does. Here I would reduce the cost, size, and power of these across the board.

Shields, I think are ok the way they are for how bulky and protective they are. What I would do is make them slightly cheaper across the board.

Maneuver is fine as is. Having large ships that can also be very fast is in-genre for the kind of space opera MOO represents.

4) TECHS
Are there some techs I should erase out of the game?
Some that need to appear earlier - later?
I won't go so far as to say the tree is perfect, but for the most part it's close enough that it's not worth messing with. There isn't anything major I would change here, and I dislike small changes for the sake of making small changes.

5) SPECIALS

Overpowered x Hardly useful
I don't have much experience with the really high-end specials to say whether they are overpowered... but on the other hand, if they are that's probably a good thing. High level tech should have the potential to break the game open and shift the game firmly toward offense, so as to get the game decided quickly, and from there on to the next game. I have more experience with the early-middle specials. Most of them are fine but a few of them are fairly useless and could stand to be improved, as follows:

Energy Pulsar, Ionic Pulsar: These need to be employed in quantity to be effective, but because they are a special you can't have more than one per ship. Thus they not really useful until you can fit one on a medium hull. However, they would become too powerful if you could easily miniaturize them to fit on a small. So, I would give these a relatively small base size, but a relatively large energy burden, so that they would just barely fit on a medium ship in the tech era that they are found in. I would probably make the base cost fairly significant for a medium hull so that these become relatively expensive, specialized, support ships, which are relatively easily countered by large and huge conventional warships or by missile boats.

Anti-missile rockets: Need a buff as they're kind of pointless at present when compared with just adding more maneuver. I doubt it would be simple to change their chance of intercepting enemy missiles, so I suppose I would just reduce the cost/size/energy some.

kyrub
Sep 04, 2007, 07:04 PM
Excellent post! Thanks, Zed, for your time.

I find many of your ideas convergent to my inner evaluation of the game balance. And some new and well taken points.

Beacuase of so many material, I'll start with RACES:

Right now, the only thing I am able to change is the research ratio. I am desperately searching for the diplomacy - but I basically don't have any presice idea about the number system behind (maybe someone has the thorough official guide? - help needed here).

Psilons - I would tone down their research bonus Yes. I was thinking about a weapon tech "handicap" of 120% or even 150% (this is still standard rate - psis have +50% RP bonus). Your suggestion is possible as well (everything to 90%?).
- the only race to be given a handicap -

Mrrshans - average construction technice one (or maybe 80% in shields?). I tend to let them be the only race who actually have weap tech advantage (Psis gone and Buls... will follow).

Darloks - you don't mention them, but really poor with AI. The only help I can and want to give them at the moment is "Excellent in Comps", 60% (50%?? - maybe too much). This is imo quite logical, to use their only strength well.

Meklars - have only "good" (80%) in comps in my forecast, but have good (80%) in construction as well. This is still pretty mighty combination, I'd say, as they will get easier those vital "reduced ind waste" thing (that can otherwise stop them at the opening stages) and "imp factories". I just imagine an industrialist Meklar opponent with this, hmm, not a funny guy. (They are now easier booty for Dars, though)

Klackons - no changes. I'd love to do only a tiny tech one: erase Dotomite Crystals (7), so that everyone, everyone, even the Klacks, gets the Sub-light drive. The better drive is so important in the early game! I often encountered huge Klackfleets in earlymid-game, flying in warp-1 ships with 42 turns remaining to their allied planet. The change was tested, and I had a feeling it worked for the good of the game (and in my eyes dotomites are very rarely needed, you may usually skip with the large ship + res-fuel tanks to colony base : and AI is able to do this as well!)

Sakkras - no change. They are good, overall. I would do some diplo-tweaks, but I can't.

Humans - ditto. No change.

Sillis - ditto.

Alkas - well. Hmm. (intend to erase the comp+2 from scatter packs VII to help the hordes; intend to somewhat increase maneuver for the huge design, here I differ to you). Well.

Bullrathis - finally, my most controversial one (and my second and last big change to gameplay): I'd like to revamp ground combat techs.
Why oh why?
- They are spread in 3 techfields, which is unheard in moo. Even the cleanup is only in 2 fields (const and planeto), bombs too, weaps too (with propulsion toys). Only groco has 3 tech fields, which i find not well designed. You can't be good at it cause you can't "control" 3 fields.
AND: It is really crippling for AI-Buls since they tend to "maintain their ground superirority" - they tend to invest heavily in groco techs that don't give them any more significant bonus. And they omit other important toys.

So I strongly suggest to erase groco toys in one field. In weapon one, that is. I personnaly never research them (except for handy Handguns), you need other things here. The AI does though. Imagine, that's five techno-advances with only +5 groco increase. Poor.
Back to Buls: With the above change, I'd give them Normal weapons (100%), Good Const (80%) and Good Propulsion (80%). The last one is a key for VERY dangerous quick suicide transport missions, against defended planets. There has been evidence bulrathi AI does it. And: Combat transporters! Urrgh.
This is not-well tested, I admit. They did, however, very well in my (yet unfinished) hard-huge-5 game (I did erase even the battle suits and exoskeleton, but this is probably too much). Best AI race there with the Meks, well spread (prop!), best in tech, prior to big conflicts.

@kyrub out

kyrub
Sep 05, 2007, 05:18 PM
Anti-missile rockets: Need a buff as they're kind of pointless at present when compared with just adding more maneuver. I doubt it would be simple to change their chance of intercepting enemy missiles, so I suppose I would just reduce the cost/size/energy some.
I was surprised to find a lonely "40" hex next to anti-miss space and power. It seems we can control the chance. :) (to be tested)
The question is, how much?

Zed-F
Sep 06, 2007, 10:45 AM
Probably doesn't need a big buff... maybe 50, and reduce the power/size a bit.

kyrub
Sep 06, 2007, 05:30 PM
I would give it +100% hull points instead of +50% hull points
While I was trying to change the values, I found out that your suuggestion was impossible. The problem lies in the miniaturization!
Example: Zortium II now has 1800 AP, which is the same as Tritanium I. Yet Tritanium comes 16 tech levels later, when Zortium II will miniaturize to some 60% of initial size and have less than 1/3 of initial prize. This is the reason type II armors are so huge in the game! They could be even used as a really-cheap-yet-spacey alternative to Trit I once this has been researched. (did anybody actually try this??). You can't pump up Type II without destroying const-techtree balance.

I tried to found alternatives. Here's one (it is not based on percentage and it is a smaller variant, hopefully more usable)
Type 2 for medium/large/huge ships =
+10/+60 /+360 ArmorPoints;
+40/+200/+1000 ShipSpace
+8 / +40 /+200 BC.

(maybe it could be even +11/+65/+400 APs - has to be tested in the game, if it is not too powerful)

This gives you possibility to sacrifice 1/5 of your shipspace to reach a bit more than "next generation armor APs".
And gives you the cheaper variant once you've researched it.
Later in the game, while it's less interesting in terms of % of APs, it consumes smaller part of the ship (1/6 or 1/7) as well.

This way? Or another one?
(I'm more and more amazed by the level of sophisticated thinking behind this "simple" game)