Torpedo question [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003, 09:54 AM

Ok, I will give you the best example I can.

For this example I will not use Aggressive or Defensive bonuses as the race that proved the worth of Torpedo ships to me did not use these bonues.

The Ships

Using Max Mounts

Ship 1

Battle Cruiser
1 Master Computer III
6 Quantum III engines
1 Phased Shielding V
1 Multi-Tracker IV
1 Combat Sensor III
1 EMC III
2 PDC's V
3 Quantum Torpedos V
1 Stealth Armor
1 Scattering Armor
1 Emissive Armor III
2 Solor Collector III's
1 Neural Combat net
1 Solar Sail III
2 Shield Regenerator V

Second Ship

Battleship
1 Master Computer III
5 Quantum Engines III
1 Solor Sail III
1 Stealth Armor
1 Scattering Armor
1 Neural Combat net
2 Phased Shielding V
3 Shield Regenerator V
1 Multi-Tracker IV
1 Combat Sensor III
1 EMC III
1 PDC's V
1 Quantum Reactor
1 Self Destruct Device
2 Shield Depleter V
5 Anti-Proton Beam XII

You create a fleet of say 75 of ship one, and 25 of ship 2 then train one or all of them at a training facility to 20%

In the mean time you build the standard PPB ships that we normally see in a game. Same class, including some of the same weapons, except PPB's instead of Torpedos and Anti-Protons Beams.

Create a fleet with say 100 battle cruisers and 50 Battleships.

Train them all to 20% as well.

Then in a PBW game have them battle.

The Torpedo ships will lose my be 25% of their ships, but there will not be one PPB ship left.

I have play tested this and was surprised. Simulators do not accurately show how a ship will do in combat. For some reason, and I am not an AI or Code person, SEIV give first shot or something to the ships that have Torpedos. Why I don't know.

primitive

November 10th, 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
For some reason, and I am not an AI or Code person, SEIV give first shot or something to the ships that have Torpedos. Why I don't know. Is this true ?

In the Sweet Victory by summertime game on PBW my empire (psychic and religious) fought 5 or 6 huge battles with Preacherman (organic). We wondered why I (almost) always got first shot, even when attacking through a wormhole. My fleets included some torpedo ships, while I think he only used organic weapons. IIRC the only time he got first shot was when I jumped through a wormhole into an all missile fleet.

primitive

November 10th, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by DeadDireWolf:
Does anyone actually use torpedoes? They just don't seem that good to me compared to other weapons of similar tech level.

Could anyone that uses them tell me some good reasons? Am I missing something obivious? Even without a possible �torpedo fires first� bug/feature:

In late game, when (if?) battles become really large with 2-300 ships on each side, the front row of ships seldom have the opportunity to fire more than once. Using a weapon with long reload time is not a problem here, so taking the biggest gun you got is usually wise. Unfortunately for torpedos, many racials + the WMG does the job even better.

Another tip for those huge battles: Make sure your ships is moving forward, or you will have a big ol� traffic jam and it will end up as a turkey shoot (with you as the turkey). Give orders of point blank, target nearest first and always include some weapon that fires every turn.

Grand Lord Vito

November 10th, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Even without a possible “torpedo fires first” bug/feature:
Is this true? Torpedos always fire first.

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003, 12:21 PM

I know of reports by players who have lost huge fleets packing WMG to fleets of Torpedo ships. I wonder if formation has a lot to do with it as well?

One player has his aggressiveness and defensiveness set to 120 and his fleet trained to 20% with EMC III, Combat Sensors III, and MutiTrack III, on each of his PPB ships and still he lost his fleet to a small Torpedo based fleet. LOL. The torp player had average settings for aggressiveness and defensiveness. I wonder if the bonuses work in reverse or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif I know that I have questioned this for a long time now. Set my mineral to 125% and throught my game all I have problems with are mining minerals.

Also movement and range weapons combined with sheild depleters play a huge role. Add in regnerators and you can bet top dollar that the fleet with the best ship design will win everytime.

[ November 10, 2003, 10:23: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Grand Lord Vito

November 10th, 2003, 12:39 PM

Even though the Torpedos seem weak on paper if the Ships get the first strike they are a MASSIVE advantage?

primitive

November 10th, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
Even though the Torpedos seem weak on paper if the Ships get the first strike they are a MASSIVE advantage? Well, this definitely needs more testing. I'll try to do some this evening (unless RL pays a visit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ November 10, 2003, 11:27: Message edited by: primitive ]

Fyron

November 10th, 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by primitive:
Even without a possible “torpedo fires first” bug/feature:
Is this true? Torpedos always fire first. <hr /></blockquote>No.

1FSTCAT

November 10th, 2003, 04:13 PM

You guys are obviously missing the TRUE advantage of Torpedo weapons.

They make GREAT WEAPONS PLATFORMS. Why? Because they're CHEAP!

When you can't hit an enemy ship at long distance, due to bonuses, you can use a level 2 or 3 torpedo, and score hits! They take LOTS of space, but they're super cheap, so you can build 3 Massive Platforms at a time, which creates tons of KT of targets on the planet. KT that ultimately absorbs incoming fire!

For this to work really well, your platforms should be complemented with a weapon that will fire more rapidly than Torp.

--Ed

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by primitive:
Even without a possible “torpedo fires first” bug/feature:
Is this true? Torpedos always fire first. <hr /></blockquote>No. <hr /></blockquote>Who then fires first in combat? Does the fleet with the best weapons fire first? What dictates who fires first in PBW combat?

Fyron

November 10th, 2003, 04:44 PM

Whoever moves into range first gets to fire first. With same ranged weapons (such as APB VII or so and whatever level of Torpedo hits range 8 (max range of all non-missile weapons)), it is the faster ships. With same speed and range, it is a crap shoot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Whoever moves into range first gets to fire first. With same ranged weapons (such as APB VII or so and whatever level of Torpedo hits range 8 (max range of all non-missile weapons)), it is the faster ships. With same speed and range, it is a crap shoot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I kinda figured it was a range weapon first issue. It makes sense.

Then why don't aggressiveness and defensiveness bonues play into this? If the Torp fleet race has no bonues, and the PPB fleet race has 120% for both and each fleet has EMC, Multi, Combat sensors, and are equally trianed at 20% then why does it always win? Just comes down to range?

Forgive me for saying this, but that couldn't be right, for if it was, then those bonuses mean jack, just design a ship with greater range than your opponent early on and sit back and watch his fleet burn in space.

Maerlyn

November 10th, 2003, 05:50 PM

you guys are crazy, hanging in the SEIV forum the whole day http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif but these are very nice discussions.
just a Q astrocities, didnt you mention somewhere else that the torpedo ships in your Version of SEIV fire every turn and that you cannot find the bug that causes this? this would explain why the torpedoships always win in your battles http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I am still a newbie, and thats most probably the reason why I stick to PPB, however, in a game with finite ressources torpedos might be worth it, because of the reduced building/maintenace cost.

oleg

November 10th, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
you guys are crazy, hanging in the SEIV forum the whole day http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif but these are very nice discussions.
... Yes, we have no life http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

spoon

November 10th, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by 1FSTCAT:
You guys are obviously missing the TRUE advantage of Torpedo weapons.

They make GREAT WEAPONS PLATFORMS. Why? Because they're CHEAP!
Of course, if you are building weapon platforms, you have already lost. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

geoschmo

November 10th, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Whoever moves into range first gets to fire first. With same ranged weapons (such as APB VII or so and whatever level of Torpedo hits range 8 (max range of all non-missile weapons)), it is the faster ships. With same speed and range, it is a crap shoot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Actually being faster isn't a guarantee of firing first. It does increase your chances, but depending on the difference in speed and the range at the begining of combat it is possible for the slower ship, even a ship with shorter range weapons to get off the first shot. Although, the greater the differance in speed and weapons range the less likely this is to happen.

Geoschmo

Maerlyn

November 10th, 2003, 09:52 PM

I just had a discussion about this with a friend of mine, and we both believe that torpedos are stronger than PPB (as long as there are no shields to be counted in) because they deal the same damage as the PPB deals in two rounds at once. this means they will be faster in destroying components, and therefor will be faster in destroying enemy weapons. even their increased size doesnt really metter. but the main problem we see is:

if you play low tech lvl with high tech cost a lvl 5 PPB will cost 525 000 tech points (including physics 1+2) to be ressearched, a lvl 5 quantum torpedo costs 1 975 000 tech points (including military science lvl 1). now this is a HUGE differens, which makes PPBs far better even without the effect that they ignore normal shields!

DeadDireWolf

November 10th, 2003, 10:44 PM

But do any of you guys actually use torpedoes?

Maerlyn - that's what I've noticed and I've only been playing the game a short time. You invest in an applied science (I forget which) for 50K, them you have to research Torpedo Lv I, for a total cost of 55K. But if you just research Lv II cannons, it costs like 5k and you have a weapon that fires the same range, every turn for nearly the same damage (I believe. Still a novice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )Weapon to weapon, tech level equal, I can't seem to find any situation yet where I want or need torepoes over anything else. Kinda depressing really, they seem kinda useless.

Atrocites - I read your example below, but do you ever outfit ships with them?

I've obiviously only been playing this game a short time, and it is by far one of the best TBS games I've played. I've got a lot to learn yet.

Sorry, but what does PPB stand for?

Maerlyn

November 10th, 2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by DeadDireWolf:
...and it is by far one of the best TBS games I've played.

Sorry, but what does PPB stand for? yeah, you are right about this. I am playing thuis game for a very short time too, but it is the best TBS game I know so far. (even better than Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri, and this was a very good game already)

PPB means Phased Polaron Beam. A direct fire weapon which skips shields and is available after you've researched physics 2. It is the most popular weapon as far as I know.

Fyron

November 10th, 2003, 11:49 PM

The biggest problem is weapon scale mounts that were introduced in SE4. There were no mounts in SE3. Components just took one hit to be destroyed, and weapons did damages on scales of 3, 5, or occasionally 10. All of this was basically multiplied by 10 in the conVersion to SE4, with some tweaking and some new weapons. BUT, SE3 torpedos had nice to hit bonuses. SE4 torpedos do not. Also, a big advantage of SE3 torpedos was that they could penetrate stuff like emmissive armor (and crystalline in SE4) better because they did more damage per shot. But, with the massive scale mount bonuses in SE4, this advantage is gone, because even a lowly DUC V can penetrate emmissive armor easily (and CA on smaller-medium ships) with a large or heavy mount.

DeadDireWolf

November 11th, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The biggest problem is weapon scale mounts that were introduced in SE4. There were no mounts in SE3. Components just took one hit to be destroyed, and weapons did damages on scales of 3, 5, or occasionally 10. All of this was basically multiplied by 10 in the conVersion to SE4, with some tweaking and some new weapons. BUT, SE3 torpedos had nice to hit bonuses. SE4 torpedos do not. Also, a big advantage of SE3 torpedos was that they could penetrate stuff like emmissive armor (and crystalline in SE4) better because they did more damage per shot. But, with the massive scale mount bonuses in SE4, this advantage is gone, because even a lowly DUC V can penetrate emmissive armor easily (and CA on smaller-medium ships) with a large or heavy mount. Far out. Nobody has addressed this issue in SEIV? Odd, if so. The game has been out for a while and I would have thought someone would have tried to balance the torpedo.

Fyron

November 11th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Not everyone agrees that it is not balanced... and there is no consensus on how to balance it, so it remains. I think there was one change to it in the early days of SE4 though (a patch). There was also one to beef up PPBs, cause apparently they were too weak before. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

PvK

November 11th, 2003, 02:47 AM

PvK

November 11th, 2003, 02:57 AM

Too much silly speculation floating around - some people need to run some solid tests to see if torps are doing anything weird.

There are plenty of mods which change torpedo stats. I know beefed them up quite a bit in Proportions mod.

First strike is one way for torps to have an advantage. There are several other risk factors that can tip the scales of a battle. If the ships start out in range of each other, then first shot is determined by who was stationary rather than moving to enter the combat, or failing that, a coin flip (in Gold; pre-Gold, it was by player number...).

Just in general though, doing more damage in the first exchange can sometimes tip the scales, because a hit on ECM or Sensors can effectively take a ship out of action, etc.

Another way is to give your ships "Max Firing Range" strategy, and then to give them only weapons with the same reload time, which is greater than 1. The result is that the ships will fire and then move away for a turn or two, which can result in avoiding getting hit by the enemy, or in partly damaged ships escaping destruction, or getting enemies with "target most damaged" to try to fire at them at excessive range (thus, missing, while full-strength ships are closer). If this succeeds (no guarantee, with the dodgy tac AI), then the torp ships may succeed in firing (or, firing and hitting) as often as their opponents do.

Against enemies with range-8 weapons especially (usually APB), range-6 weapons can also have an advantage if both sides have full-strength ECM and defensive-bonus armor, because it will be hard for either to hit at range-8, and +20% easier at range 6. Because SE4 to-hit is based on simplistic addition rather than multiplication (like real-universe probability), this can be much more than a 20% advantage, since if the chance to-hit is say, 20% at range 8, at range 6, the chance would be 40%, or twice as likely.

PvK

Fyron

November 11th, 2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Whoever moves into range first gets to fire first. With same ranged weapons (such as APB VII or so and whatever level of Torpedo hits range 8 (max range of all non-missile weapons)), it is the faster ships. With same speed and range, it is a crap shoot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Haven't played unmodded in a while, Fryon?

Torps max out at range 6, as do several other DF weapons in the unmodded game (some also max at 5).

PvK <hr /></blockquote>Well that just makes APBs even more powerful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Against enemies with range-8 weapons especially (usually APB), range-6 weapons can also have an advantage if both sides have full-strength ECM and defensive-bonus armor, because it will be hard for either to hit at range-8, and +20% easier at range 6. Because SE4 to-hit is based on simplistic addition rather than multiplication (like real-universe probability), this can be much more than a 20% advantage, since if the chance to-hit is say, 20% at range 8, at range 6, the chance would be 40%, or twice as likely The problem with that is that in most battles, there are a lot of ships, and the range 8 weapons just allow ships in the back to fire, while the bulk of the ships are still up at close ranges (unless you use max range for some odd reason). Optimal range usually makes your ships move in close to fire anyways (especially with high enemy ECM values). They will fire and move away if they start close. Or just sit there if they are crowded by huge fleets. Those ships in the back don't hit often, but they hit more often than the enemey's rear ships that can't even attempt to fire. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Fleet stacking is not to be underestimated.

[ November 11, 2003, 01:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK

November 11th, 2003, 04:40 AM

Your points about thickly-stacked masses of ships, and second and third ranks being able to fire, are good ones. It depends on the numbers of ships involved, fire tactics used, actual ship positions, speeds, and to-hit mods on both sides. However I have seen end-game battles and simulator situations where range-six weapons would do better than range-eight weapons, at least if the range-eight weapons were on Max Weapon Range strategy. It was pretty clear in the replays this was because they were missing much more at range 7-8 than their opponents were at range 6. If the range-8's are on Point Blank, Short, or maybe even Optimal, though, and Target Nearest, then they shouldn't be firing at 7-8 when they could fire at 6. However, unless you have a skill disadvantage, often the Max Weapon Range strat will beat the more agressive strats, although again it depends on a lot of other factors.

PvK

Fyron

November 11th, 2003, 08:54 AM

That is why you don't use max range unless you are using missiles, have a huge tech advantage over the enemy, have talismans, or are a masochist. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Optimal usually works well for me.

DeadDireWolf

November 12th, 2003, 04:02 AM

Couple of other questions, I'll post them here to avoid starting another thread --

At what treaty can your treaty partners pass by your minefields and satellites?

Does a low level APB have any advantage over a DUC III? I noticed one race switched from using DUC IIIs to APB I. Seems like a step back.

Had another question but forgot what it was.... rats.

Renegade 13

November 12th, 2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by DeadDireWolf:
At what treaty can your treaty partners pass by your minefields and satellites Any treaty of Non Agression or above will allow your partners to bypass your minefields and satellites.

DeadDireWolf

November 12th, 2003, 05:03 AM

Thanks.

I'm afraid if I sign this treaty, they'll come in and colonize my systems and I won't be able to stop them.

Renegade 13

November 12th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by DeadDireWolf:
Thanks.

I'm afraid if I sign this treaty, they'll come in and colonize my systems and I won't be able to stop them. Yeah, that's the major downfall of any treaty. Just a hint: if you aren't in a horribly bad position with the AI you want to make a treaty with, then wait until you have all your core systems' planets colonized. Then the Ai can send colony ships all it wants and get nowhere.

Now, if you're in a tight spot, you might not want to do that. Grab any chance to make a treaty.

Renegade

Taera

November 12th, 2003, 06:57 AM

Fyron, in a correct way of development, ive found out that max range works REALY WELL well untill the late late stages of the game, and then correct design turn max range ships into a very annoying subject.

Fyron

November 12th, 2003, 07:11 AM

Well that is not very helpful unless you post specifics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ November 12, 2003, 05:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Atrocities

November 12th, 2003, 07:33 AM

I think we have just torpedoed a few top players game strategies. Now that the secret of Torpedo ships and range weapons is out in the open, time for some new tactics boys.

Fyron

November 12th, 2003, 07:44 AM

Not for me. This is old news, having been discussed at least 5000 times already on Shrapnel. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It is not much of a secret, and ONLY if the APB ships are on max range. Otherwise, it is a mute point.

[ November 12, 2003, 05:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Taera

November 12th, 2003, 10:19 AM

This of course requires testing. Preferrably field testing. thats why i have my Conceptual Empires (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=010359) game idea for.

[ November 12, 2003, 08:19: Message edited by: Taera ]

Atrocities

November 12th, 2003, 11:38 AM

So boys and, well boys, the moral of this thread is to use Torpedo tactics, you need to max them out, arm your ships with Heavy mounts, long range APB, and set your fleet strategy to Maximum Range.

Then build tons of ships and go anhiliate your enemies.

Draw backs are now that we know its a lagit tactic, we will be ready for it. So bring it one baby.

Fyron

November 12th, 2003, 04:07 PM

No... to use torpedo tactics, your enemy needs to do that. If you do that, you are not using torpedo tactics, you are using some APB tactics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

November 12th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Don't include the APB's on torpedo ships if you want to use the Max Range shoot & retreat tactic I described. Otherwise, your ships will stick around to fire their APB's every turn, and will tend to get out-gunned by the enemy APB ships. You might mix in some ships with only fire-every-turn weapons, though, especially so you can have some shield depleters in action - shield depleters will be needed once the enemy has phased shields.

Oh, and as for Phased Polaron Beams - I often only bother to use level II, because they have the same range, nearly as good damage, and cost a lot less than the highest-level PPB's. They are more efficient in terms of damage per resources used, for a long time (until the price of the rest of your ship gets to be so much that it makes sense to max the weapons, but by that time, your enemies may have phased shields, so you probably want to switch to some other weapon combined with shield depleters).

PvK

Ed Kolis

November 12th, 2003, 09:25 PM

Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range...

Of course that wouldn't work when the enemy has faster engines, but then for assaults against satellites, bases, and planets... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

November 12th, 2003, 09:50 PM

It also does not work very well when the enemy goes the same speed as you either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

DeadDireWolf

November 12th, 2003, 09:52 PM

I'm so lost from the preceeding conversation it's not even funny. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Wow. What a noob.

JLS

November 12th, 2003, 10:01 PM

DeadDireWolf is it the abbreviations used or everything said here in general. Ask any questions and you will have several replies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 12, 2003, 20:02: Message edited by: JLS ]

DeadDireWolf

November 13th, 2003, 12:11 AM

I got the abbreviations, I believe.

The talk about torpedo tactics, max range, anti proton beam tactics have me confused. Do you guys let the computer handle the battles? That's the impression that I get.

"So boys and, well boys, the moral of this thread is to use Torpedo tactics, you need to max them out, arm your ships with Heavy mounts, long range APB, and set your fleet strategy to Maximum Range.

Draw backs are now that we know its a lagit tactic, we will be ready for it."

I don't get it. Nobody thought of this earlier? I thought PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned. But this only applies if you have the computer fight the battle with the orders you've issued, right? I'm not sure because I've not had a battle large enough that I didn't fight it myself.

and just what the heck does this mean?

"Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range..."

????

Thanks. Enjoying the game. Now trying to learn more.

Taera

November 13th, 2003, 12:19 AM

Re: Speed of ships. Same or greater speed is in fact an issue when your talking about 1v1, 2v2 or even 5v5. but when ship counts go to, say, 20v20 the damage spread is extremly significant. For those ships, however, you will need a very smart fleet formation. For heavy-hitters-out-ranged the best ive found, as ive stated several times, is the turbine formation. if your going head on, unless the enemy has realy smart strategies the damage will be very evenly spread amongst the ships, and with regen/crystal/shield regen/strong shields some of your ships might come unscathed and others lightly damaged. At the same time, their ships moving into your range to hit the ship that withdrew would put themselves into a crossfire of the whole fleet. Boom.

Just a note, torpedo ships beat PPB&NSP ships. tested.

Fyron

November 13th, 2003, 01:31 AM

That only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways.

I don't get it. Nobody thought of this earlier? I thought PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned. But this only applies if you have the computer fight the battle with the orders you've issued, right? I'm not sure because I've not had a battle large enough that I didn't fight it myself.
No. That is only an issue IF the APB using fleet has maximum range strategies set (which is NOT the default strategy). Otherwise, the ships will always move in close before they fire (especially since the secondary movement type for optimal range is point blank...), rarely actually firing at range 8 (unless there are so many ships that they can not get closer, of course). Using Max Range is only a good idea if you are using missiles or if you have the religious Talisman, or if you have a severe advantage in combat bonuses (such as a few levels ahead in the CS/ECM race, and having large racial combat bonuses)

spoon

November 13th, 2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Taera:

Just a note, torpedo ships beat PPB&NSP ships. tested. Hmm, I tested and got the opposite (of course!)

I made battleships, fairly usual loadout (speed 10, 480kt of weapons (8 Heavy PPBs vs 6 Heavy Quantum Torps), 3 phased-shields V, and both def armors.

Tried them out in the simulator... with 25 and then 50 ships per side. I then swapped sides in case that mattered, and did it over again. PPBs won ~ 38 out of 40 fights...

[ November 12, 2003, 23:38: Message edited by: spoon ]

Fyron

November 13th, 2003, 03:24 AM

Perhaps you should test based on equal costs of ships on each side, rather than just equal tonnage of weapons? Give each side as many ships as they can build for 200,000 resources (total), for example.

Taera

November 13th, 2003, 05:37 AM

actually, my tests were early attempts to find a workable counter to rage's designs - they were the first to use PPB & NSP from early on till end game. I've found out that cost-wise only torpedoes could realy defeat those ships (tests included armor, of course, as well as phased shields and maxed tech)

Fyron

November 13th, 2003, 06:10 AM

NSP is a weak weapon to begin with, only useful in a minor support role. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

oleg

November 13th, 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
NSP is a weak weapon to begin with, only useful in a minor support role. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Not sure about this. One hit from a massive mount NSP can fry the interior of most ships, leaving the empty armour shell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It does not really mater how good and powerfull was that ship. It is a toast in just one shot.

spoon

November 13th, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Perhaps you should test based on equal costs of ships on each side, rather than just equal tonnage of weapons? Give each side as many ships as they can build for 200,000 resources (total), for example. I used 1,000,000 resources as the base:

If you include all resources, then the torps win 4 out of 5 times (44 PPB ships vs 56 Torp ships).

If you just compare mineral costs, then PPB ships win most of the time (60 PPB ships vs 63 Torp ships).

Question is, then, how much the Rads cost hold up your ship production. Although also important: you might be able to build a decent torp ship one turn quicker than a decent PPB ship just based on the mineral difference (for my tests, PPBs ship cost 17,550 and Torp ships cost 15800. At that point in the game, my shipyards are usually building at about 4500, so the likely answer for me is no...)

Torps did better than I thought they would, but I still think they could use a boost, especially if you factor in their research cost...

Fyron

November 13th, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
NSP is a weak weapon to begin with, only useful in a minor support role. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Not sure about this. One hit from a massive mount NSP can fry the interior of most ships, leaving the empty armour shell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It does not really mater how good and powerfull was that ship. It is a toast in just one shot. <hr /></blockquote>But that requires using Baseships, which are extremely innefficient... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And then, the weapon can not fire again for what, 3 more rounds? Think of how much more damage "normal" weapons could do in that time. Even though they have to get through shields (and armor, which is nothing) first, a shield depleter or two will take care of that nicely.

Fyron

November 13th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Perhaps you should test based on equal costs of ships on each side, rather than just equal tonnage of weapons? Give each side as many ships as they can build for 200,000 resources (total), for example. I used 1,000,000 resources as the base:

If you include all resources, then the torps win 4 out of 5 times (44 PPB ships vs 56 Torp ships).

If you just compare mineral costs, then PPB ships win most of the time (60 PPB ships vs 63 Torp ships).

Question is, then, how much the Rads cost hold up your ship production. Although also important: you might be able to build a decent torp ship one turn quicker than a decent PPB ship just based on the mineral difference (for my tests, PPBs ship cost 17,550 and Torp ships cost 15800. At that point in the game, my shipyards are usually building at about 4500, so the likely answer for me is no...)

Torps did better than I thought they would, but I still think they could use a boost, especially if you factor in their research cost... <hr /></blockquote>Now test those torp ships against APBs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And do some MBs for good measure.

oleg

November 13th, 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... And then, the weapon can not fire again for what, 3 more rounds? Think of how much more damage "normal" weapons could do in that time... How can they do anydamage if they are all dead in one round ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Maerlyn

November 13th, 2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by DeadDireWolf:
Do you guys let the computer handle the battles? That's the impression that I get. he DeadDireWolf, in multiplayer games there is no tactical combat, all combats are done by the computer. this means that "we", hm, no, actually: them, are only talking about computer resolved combats.

DeadDireWolf

November 13th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Now it all makes sense.

Do you guys play against the computer at all anymore?

Also, is there anyway to rename the entire system or do you have to do it one at a time with the 'name' button?

Atrocities

November 13th, 2003, 09:44 PM

I do by nature still play single player because I know no one else who plays the game other than the people here and one friend. But hot seat play is kinda boring.

Fyron

November 13th, 2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... And then, the weapon can not fire again for what, 3 more rounds? Think of how much more damage "normal" weapons could do in that time... How can they do anydamage if they are all dead in one round ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <hr /></blockquote>Because you will only destroy all of the enemy if you outnumber them and vastly outgun them... and NSP don't have that great of a range, combined with being on really slow ships, so you will rarely get to fire first, unless you fight defensively at a WP, which is not that common of an occurance in most situations.

spoon

November 14th, 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Now test those torp ships against APBs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And do some MBs for good measure. Ran some more tests, all on Optimal Firing Range (Nearest, Has Weaps, Most Damaged, Strongest):

Based on Tonnage alone (50 battleships)
APB beat MB beat PPB beat Torp beat Null Space. (That's right, MB beat PPB. Never would have guessed that... MB won 6 out of 10).

Based on 1,000,000 resources (inc organic and rads), I had the following ship totals:
Torp: 56
APB: 53
MB: 50
PPB: 44
NSP: 36

APB beat everything (again)
MB beat Torps and PPB and NSP
Torps beat PPB and NSP
PPB beat NSP
NSP didn't beat anything

tesco samoa

November 14th, 2003, 07:14 PM

spoon now you should break it down to 80% torp and 20% NSP etc.... for 1 million points... And see what combo will take on the APB and or Last the longest

Parasite

November 14th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
spoon now you should break it down to 80% torp and 20% NSP etc.... for 1 million points... And see what combo will take on the APB and or Last the longest This looks like a perfect case to set up a genetic algorithm and vary the fleets a bit, have them fight, vary the winners, rinse, repeat as needed.

Taera

November 14th, 2003, 10:52 PM

im sorry guys, but i dont think you can algorithm this game, as it is simply the reflection of player's mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Maerlyn

November 14th, 2003, 11:42 PM

nice experiment spoon, but how strong were those ships armoured? as NSP is only good against heavy shielded/armored ships.

spoon

November 14th, 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
nice experiment spoon, but how strong were those ships armoured? as NSP is only good against heavy shielded/armored ships. I used a fairly common design:
1 bridge, 2 life support, 2 crew quarters
5 jacketed photon engines III
1 solar sail III
1 ECM III
1 Combat Sensors III
1 Multiplex Tracking V
1-2 Point Defense V (some ships had 20kt extra, so I filled it with PD)
1 Stealth Armor III
1 Scattering Armor III
3 Phased Shield Gen III
400 - 420 kt Weapon, Heavy Mount

So the total resistance that the NSPs skipped was: 1415 (1125 shields, 290 armor).

Maerlyn

November 15th, 2003, 12:21 AM

thanx for this additional information. the results of your experiment look very useful to me. (as I overestimated NSP until now) I dont really like them because of their enourmous cost anyway.

what do you guys think about the temporal weapons?

[ November 14, 2003, 22:31: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

Fyron

November 15th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Taera:
im sorry guys, but i dont think you can algorithm this game, as it is simply the reflection of player's mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yes, you certainly can. The algorithm will only give rough estimates though, and only based on the tech level used (max in this case). There is no guarantee of APB beating everything else, of course. But, all else being equal (which rarely occurs in-game, of course), APB will win most of the time. Unless you use Max Range strategy...

Fyron

November 15th, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
what do you guys think about the temporal weapons? Time Distortion Bursts can sometimes go head to head with APBs if the enemy uses lots of shielding. Otherwise, they lose out (as they do lots of damage to shields, relatively little past the shields). The Shield Accelerator is roughly akin to the Shield Depleters. The Temporal Shifter is actually weaker than the NSP, but costs less IIRC. I forget exactly what it was better at and worse at, but it was not just purely better than or worse than the NSP. The Tachyon Cannon suffers from the same draw backs (and has the same advantages as) the Torpedo weapons.

spoon

November 15th, 2003, 01:16 AM

Well, don't take them as proof of anything - I only ran each test 10 times, and the simulator is known to be a bit off in its results.

It does, though, make me want to try MBs as a mid-game weapon (instead of PPBs) Though if I get beat down by ships with Shields V, I will never doubt my PPBs again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
thanx for this additional information. the results of your experiment look very useful to me. (as I overestimated NSP until now) I dont really like them because of their enourmous cost anyway.

what do you guys think about the temporal weapons?

Ed Kolis

November 15th, 2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by DeadDireWolf:
Also, is there anyway to rename the entire system or do you have to do it one at a time with the 'name' button? You can't rename systems - only ships and planets that you own. So if you colonized every planet in the Potekron system, yes, you could rename them Iolo I, Iolo II, Iolo III, etc., but the star would still be Potekron Star and the system would show up on the galaxy map as Potekron.

PvK

November 16th, 2003, 02:02 AM

Another thing for newbies to take into account is that Fryon likes to dogmatically repeat his opinion as if he were absolutely right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif He's actually wrong about some of the things he's been repeating recently - especially about some of my Posts being wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

PvK

November 16th, 2003, 02:12 AM

If someone runs more tests, try adding a Shield Depleter as the first weapon on non-NSP ships.

Ships with greater than 1-turn reload times should use Max Range with secondary strategy "don't get hurt", so they don't stick around to get killed while recharging weapons.

PvK

Fyron

November 16th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
Another thing for newbies to take into account is that Fryon likes to dogmatically repeat his opinion as if he were absolutely right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif He's actually wrong about some of the things he's been repeating recently - especially about some of my Posts being wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK Nope. You're wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But really... what am I allegedly wrong about?

Wardad

November 16th, 2003, 04:01 AM

OK BOYS! Break it up.

Take it outside to a Fyron Is Wrong thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PvK

November 16th, 2003, 04:34 AM

Sorry Wardad. I was just exaggerating and teasing Fryon about his exaggerated teases. Staying on topic, I'd say Fryon was either wrong or exaggerating or incomplete about such things as:

"... Baseships, which are extremely innefficient..."
- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".

"That [Taera: "PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned."] only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways."
- These are exaggerations. Max range with ships that need to reload will tend to improve their effect and survivability, unless there are so many ships that they can't actually move backwards. Also, even in huge/dense ship battles, there are still a significant number of ships which don't get blown up in a single turn.

In reply to Ed Kolis:
"Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range...

Of course that wouldn't work when the enemy has faster engines, but then for assaults against satellites, bases, and planets... "

Fryon quipped:
"It also does not work very well when the enemy goes the same speed as you either."
- Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading.

Now, I'm not asserting that such tactics are enough to tip the scales set by the rather lame torp stats versus the rather good APB XII stats in the unmodded game, but they do have positive effects in many situations.

It was clear to me from Fryon's winking smilies (" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ") that he was teasing and exaggerating, but I thought maybe some newer players might get the wrong idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Fyron

November 16th, 2003, 06:08 AM

It was clear to me from Fryon's winking smilies (" ") that he was teasing and exaggerating, but I thought maybe some newer players might get the wrong idea. I often use smileys at fairly random times. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".They are very slow. Compare ROF 1 range 8 weapons on BBs with max range to ROF 1 range 6 on BS with optimal, point blank, whatever. Same engines. The BBs can fire and move well out of range and not be fired at in some rounds because they have 2 greater speed in combat. All shots will be at long ranges for both sides. BB fires at range 7, moves back far enough so that the BS can't get within range to fire its weapons. Even if the ships use the same range weapons, the BBs can still get an advantage. The only way that using max range with long range weapons is a good idea is when you have a speed advantage. If the enemy is using BSs, you can guarantee a speed advantage by using BBs. DNs have a speed advantage too, but it is only 1 point, so much more difficult to use effectively. And, they do not even get a better mount than the BB. This is the biggest factor in the innefficiency of the BS (that, and their high research cost, which could be better spent getting higher level weapons, shields, etc. sooner). The benefit of the massive mount over the heavy mount is not usually enough to outweigh the loss of speed. Then, they tend to have much longer build times. Replacing losses takes a lot longer with BS than with BB (large losses, at any rate). This can be mitigated with huge racial construction bonuses, though not completely. And, of course, you spend less on the basics (bridge, engine, CS, etc.), which gives a bit of increased cost effeciency. Oh, and let's not forget that ECM penalty that Baseships have. That always hurts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading. Ok. You fire your rate 2 weapon, then your ship moves 4 squares away (assuming 4 speed). My rate 1 weapon armed ship moves 4 squares closer, and we are back to ground zero with the ships in the same relative positions as before. Where is the advantage? Default optimal range strategy targetting priority: Has Weapons, Most Damaged, Nearest, Strongest. Ships will tend to follow those ships that are damaged and retreating while they recharge their weapons, thus greatly reducing their ability to try to avoid damage by falling back. Those that have not yet been damaged don't need to be followed.

Now, I'm not asserting that such tactics are enough to tip the scales set by the rather lame torp stats versus the rather good APB XII stats in the unmodded game, but they do have positive effects in many situations.That they do. Unfortunately, the situations in which they don't have any postive effects tend to outnumber those in which they do. Unless, of course, you can force every battle to be defensive behind a warp point so that you can exploit the high damage per shot of the torpedos to do more damage in round 1, hoping to destroy enough of the enemy fleet so that your lack of staying power (ie: much less damage/rate/kiloton ratio, so less damage can be dealt in X rounds than with APB) can be bypassed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 16, 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK

November 16th, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...
<blockquote>quote:<hr />- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".They are very slow. Compare ROF 1 range 8 weapons on BBs with max range to ROF 1 range 6 on BS with optimal, point blank, whatever. Same engines. The BBs can fire and move well out of range and not be fired at in some rounds because they have 2 greater speed in combat.
<hr /></blockquote>
The difference is two engines, or ONE greater speed in combat, not two, since combat speed is half of the strategic speed.

Yes, it can still make a difference in some cases, IF you are using the Max Range strategy which I was suggesting (and which you were saying was useless).

My point on this item is just that this +1 combat speed (or +2 movement speed) isn't enough to make baseships "extremely inefficient". They have advantages and disadvantages, which can be used well or poorly. In some cases they can be an efficient choice.

... The only way that using max range with long range weapons is a good idea is when you have a speed advantage.

Another exaggeration. Two examples are the one you're making me re-explain below, and the example when you have a to-hit advantage over your opponent, so you want to maximize it by prolonging the time that the range is long. A third is when your enemy has shorter-ranged weapons than you do.

If the enemy is using BSs, you can guarantee a speed advantage by using BBs.

Unless they have an advantage in engine or Solar Sail technology, or the Propulsion Experts advantage...

...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> - Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading. Ok. You fire your rate 2 weapon, then your ship moves 4 squares away (assuming 4 speed). My rate 1 weapon armed ship moves 4 squares closer, and we are back to ground zero with the ships in the same relative positions as before. Where is the advantage?
<hr /></blockquote>
The advantage is that I fired at max range, so on your next turn, you are firing at that same max range while I reload. If I didn't use Max Range, you would be nailing me at much closer range while I was reloading. Also, sometimes there are obstacles, and being at range also often means fewer of your ships will be in range to fire at all, some of my ships which have just reloaded or are just coming in range may now be closer, etc.

Default optimal range strategy targetting priority: Has Weapons, Most Damaged, Nearest, Strongest. Ships will tend to follow those ships that are damaged and retreating while they recharge their weapons, thus greatly reducing their ability to try to avoid damage by falling back. Those that have not yet been damaged don't need to be followed.

If you do that, as I explained before, you may be pursuing a slightly-damaged ship of mine which is at max range, but to do so, you are missing many shots, and moving to closer range against some of my undamaged ships who are ready to fire at you and retreat.

Also, if some of your ships become damaged so that they lose speed but not weapons, they will tend to fall out of range to hit any of my ships, as the battle moves towards me and away from your stragglers.

PvK

Fyron

November 16th, 2003, 09:07 AM

The difference is two engines, or ONE greater speed in combat, not two, since combat speed is half of the strategic speed. No, the difference is 3 engines, which comes out to either one or two combat move, depending on which engines and sails you are using. Quantum Engines + Solar Sail III nets 6 combat move for BB, 4 for BS. 2 difference in combat movement.

Yes, it can still make a difference in some cases, IF you are using the Max Range strategy which I was suggesting (and which you were saying was useless). I never said that... in fact, you were the one advocating using torpedoes against someone using APBs and max range! In fact, I listed several times when max range is not bad... although I see I forgot to mention the speed advantage in that post, which is the other time it can be advantageous.

quote:
... The only way that using max range with long range weapons is a good idea is when you have a speed advantage.

Another exaggeration. Two examples are the one you're making me re-explain below, and the example when you have a to-hit advantage over your opponent, so you want to maximize it by prolonging the time that the range is long. A third is when your enemy has shorter-ranged weapons than you do.I suppose the wording could have been better there, as I had previously listed those other cases... It was not an exaggeration, it was part of the on-going comparison of late-game tech, in which you don't have to-hit advantages from tech (and racial bonuses tend to balance out as most players take 130% bonus anyways, or get knocked off early-game...). And, the range advantage thing was part of that paragraph. Taking that sentence on its own would lead to such an interpretation, but leaving it in context does not. But either way, my point still stands.

Unless they have an advantage in engine or Solar Sail technology, or the Propulsion Experts advantage...This was assuming same propulsion mechanisms... if you spend the research to get BS, you won't likely be ahead in propulsion (unless far behind in other areas), unless you have a lot more research points anyways, which is a totally different issue.

The advantage is that I fired at max range, so on your next turn, you are firing at that same max range while I reload. If I didn't use Max Range, you would be nailing me at much closer range while I was reloading. Also, sometimes there are obstacles, and being at range also often means fewer of your ships will be in range to fire at all, some of my ships which have just reloaded or are just coming in range may now be closer, etc.APBs still out-perform torpedos at those max ranges (range 6: APB XII 1.5 dmg ratio, QT V 1.25 dmg ratio)... and with torpedos not having any to hit bonus, it is really not much of an advantage. Your ships can't get away with same speed ships, so they are still going to be in range anyways. And, with the greater range of the APB, the APB ships can still get more stacking fire than the torpedo ships out at those max ranges, thus increasing the damage done by the APB side even further. Sure fewer of my APB ships will be in range to fire, but even fewer of yours will be. I will still have more ships that can fire than you, due to the range advantage. And don't forget about the shield depleters + ionic dispersers that make all that moving of yours stop. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If you do that, as I explained before, you may be pursuing a slightly-damaged ship of mine which is at max range, but to do so, you are missing many shots, and moving to closer range against some of my undamaged ships who are ready to fire at you and retreat.Due to how SE4 strategic combat AI concentrates fire, there will be very few slightly-damaged ships to pursue. Ships that get shot at most always get shot at until they are dead (within the round), then the next target is selected.

Also, if some of your ships become damaged so that they lose speed but not weapons, they will tend to fall out of range to hit any of my ships, as the battle moves towards me and away from your stragglers.And your ships that get damaged in the same way will fall prey to close ranged attacks. Unless you are going to spread your fire out amongst my ships, trying not to destroy, just disable (which leads to taking more damage from my ships overall as they get knocked out of combat more slowly), your ships will tend to concentrate their fire on mine, destroying them in a single round as well. It is only in those rare small battles where there is not enough firepower to vaporize that this is much of an issue.

[ November 16, 2003, 07:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Maerlyn

November 16th, 2003, 11:55 AM

now this is a really good discussion, I learn a lot from this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif so thanx a lot.

if you ask me: its 2:2 until now, but both of you should try to stick to the assumptions made in the beginning and not bring in possible additional weapons or other components in order to strenghten your arguments. (as both of you did)

PVK: Unless they have an advantage in engine or Solar Sail technology, or the Propulsion Experts advantage...Imperator Fyron: And don't forget about the shield depleters + ionic dispersers that make all that moving of yours stop.but beside this it is a VERY VERY nice discussion. thanx again. I would really enjoy a SEIV PBW game once with all (or most) of you heavy forum posters here. I am sure I will be deeply impressed by all the tricks you guys still got hitten in your sleeves http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 16, 2003, 09:56: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

Atrocities

November 16th, 2003, 12:13 PM

If you want hidden tricks and slick tactics you will get them with these guys. They are very good at what they do. It is almost frightening how well they know this game and how to exploit the weapons, formations, and strategies of the game.

The thing that I have noticed time and again is that once everyone reaches a certain weapons tech level everyone becomes more or less evenly matched and the dynamic of the game changes from a tech race to who can blow up whos planets first.

The only way to gain the advantage once everyone has the advantage of superior weapon technology is to go after their resource supply lines. Fleets seldom engage each other unless they have no choice and the turn after turn is spent in a cat and mouse game of seek and destroy.

If you do not anihilate your opponent early on, when you do have the advantage, then you will more likely wish you had after he and you are evenly matched and he begins to pose a sincere threat to your galatic way of life.

No plans of universal domination can prepare you for the loss of a huge fleet to a relatively small number of ships, out dated ships that is. So when it happens, its is because the other guy knew a trick that you did not. I call these occurances by names such as:

Operation Slick weasle
Operation Sneaky Bastard
Operation Backstabber
Operation I should have seen that one coming.

So on and so on.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

deccan

November 16th, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
now this is a really good discussion, I learn a lot from this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif so thanx a lot.I'm sure all the BGNW players will agree that the Last thing they want is for Maerlyn to learn more new tricks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

November 16th, 2003, 06:04 PM

if you ask me: its 2:2 until now, but both of you should try to stick to the assumptions made in the beginning and not bring in possible additional weapons or other components in order to strenghten your arguments. (as both of you did) Well since Shield Depleters make up half of the APB strategy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Generally, people go DUC > PPB > SD + APB. The PPB devastes ships with standard shields, and the SD can devastate ships with any shielding (phased included). IDs are just icing on the cake. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Of course, Torpedo ships can benefit from SD and ID too.

Oh, and another point... multiplex tracking helps APB ships more than Torpedo ships. The higher damage per shot from the Torpedos can lead to more damage getting wasted in the Last shot that destroys a ship from the Torpedo than you lose from the APB.

PvK

November 16th, 2003, 07:27 PM

I was trying to keep the points focused to a few examples of what I meant when I said Fryon was over-generalizing in specific Posts. His Last counter-arguments tend to smear between issues, which would be a bit of work to go back and re-direct.

So, just a few clarfications:

* Ya, it's 1 or 2 combat speed difference between baseships and battleships with the same equipment. However, it's still not enough to keep baseships from having certain efficiencies, such as better mounts and the ability to pile about twice as much equipment on per set of other components, etc. My point was simply that they are not "extremely inefficient" - rather, they have some strengths and some weaknesses.

* Fryon wrote: "in fact, you were the one advocating using torpedoes against someone using APBs and max range!" Not even! I was just explaining what advantages there were in that style of fighting, while repeatedly saying that I thought they were still a weaker weapon than APB XII so I'd be surprised if it made the difference. What I was arguing about, were Fryon's exaggerations on other details.

* He's continuing to miss or dodge the point that while reloading and unable to fire, it's better to be as far away as possible, instead of close. He's either failing to understand what I've explained several times, or hoping no one will notice that he's just repeating an unrelated argument which I agree with, that unmodded APB XII does do a lot more total damage than Quantum Torps.

* As for statements about the frequency of battles so huge that all ships are smashed in one turn, etc., that largely depends upon circumstances. In my experience, I've seen many battles where Max Range/Don't Get Hurt has allowed a smaller fleet to defeat a much larger one. I've also watched replays with hundreds of ships in them, where many ships were not destroyed on the first turn they came under fire. Many of course were destroyed in one turn, so it's true that often you don't get a chance to run away, but sometimes you do, and it only takes sometimes to give an advantage, even if a slight one, which is what I had meant to argue.

I'd also add a point, that Max/Don't Get Hurt tends to be more of an advantage to the smaller fleet rather than the larger one, since it reduces the amount of contact with the enemy compared to more aggressive movement orders. When you have the advantage of numbers and/or a slight disadvantage in quality, and in many other cases, Optimal/Short/PointBlank can offer advantages, by getting more of your ships as close as possible.

PvK

Rollo

November 16th, 2003, 08:35 PM

Torpedoes cannot target fighters. That is actually an advantage in larger fleet battles (given that you have enough PD, of course). While APB or PPB ships waste shots on fighter stacks, torpedoes will deal with the real threats (i.e. ships). So they are, in a sense, 'cannon fodder skipping' weapons.
I ran some tests a while back that showed if fighters are involved, the battle can swing decisively in favor of the torpedo using fleet.

Atrocities

November 16th, 2003, 09:06 PM

This topic has turned out to be one of the best strategy threads I have read in a good long long time.

SpaceBadger

November 16th, 2003, 09:48 PM

My problem with using Max Range strategy was with the combat AI of my ships in strategic combat. In this game I had some fairly decent APBs with much better range than the low-level PPBs that this particular AI enemy had. Neither of us had much in the way of shields, so the shield penetration of their PPBs was not really a factor. I figured to take advantage of that range difference by setting my ships to Max Range, thinking that I would be making hits on the enemy while staying out of their range entirely. Big surprise! My fleet was destroyed with almost no damage to the enemy, so I ran the Replay to find out what happened.

Our ships had started combat all mixed together, and the problem was that my ships were all scrambling to get away to max range, meanwhile getting the snot pounded out of them. Instead of firing while up close, and then seeking to move away to max range, my ships were moving away, then firing from the increased range, with reduced damage and chance to hit. Then the enemy would move up close and paste my ships from short range. Repeat a few times, and my fleet was gone.

I hope in SEV we get some smarter combat AI, that will fire the guns while at best range in the maneuvers. That may be before moving if you are trying to move away, or after moving if you are trying to get closer, or in mid-move if doing a hit-and-run with fighters - but not at your furthest point from the enemy!

SpaceBadger

PvK

November 17th, 2003, 03:47 AM

An awful starting position can make all the difference. It seems to me though that usually Max/Don't Get Hurt does fire before moving away, so I'm not sure what occurred in your situation to make it move and then fire from further away.

The tac AI can do some other silly things sometimes. The Max Range strategy can also be messed up when a ship ends up running away from the ship it's firing on, but towards other enemy ships, when it doesn't have to. And many other weird possibilities.

PvK

Taera

November 17th, 2003, 04:15 AM

Rollo: check "Do Not Fire On" setting in strategies, this isnt a point to focus on

Max Range - max range is a small to med fleet strategy, assuming you have equal or greater speed. the best results are when you start in a loose formation and have time to close in. for close quarters.. go short range

deccan

November 17th, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
An awful starting position can make all the difference. It seems to me though that usually Max/Don't Get Hurt does fire before moving away, so I'm not sure what occurred in your situation to make it move and then fire from further away.
No, I've seen this too. Ships on Max run away, THEN shoot. Ridiculous.

oleg

November 17th, 2003, 04:19 PM

Targeting selection can also affect ship firing/movement order. Unless you use "nearest, nearest..." ships may try to reach some far away ship and fire after movement. Sometimes it can give the impression "run away and then fire".

spoon

November 17th, 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
If someone runs more tests, try adding a Shield Depleter as the first weapon on non-NSP ships.
My thinking on this is that if they all had equal amounts of shield depleting, then there would be no difference between performance. Thinking about it now, though, I wouldn't be surprised if Torp Ships got a greater bonus out of it... I'll give it a go.
Originally posted by PvK:

Ships with greater than 1-turn reload times should use Max Range with secondary strategy "don't get hurt", so they don't stick around to get killed while recharging weapons.
PvK I thought that "don't get hurt" was the default behaviour if you didn't have a weapon to fire. Does actually setting the secondary strat to "Don't Get Hurt" do anything for ships with higher reloads?

oleg

November 17th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
I thought that "don't get hurt" was the default behaviour if you didn't have a weapon to fire. Does actually setting the secondary strat to "Don't Get Hurt" do anything for ships with higher reloads? IIRC, the "RAM !!!" affects ship movement during the reload.

PvK

November 17th, 2003, 09:29 PM

If you don't use "Don't Get Hurt" as secondary, then ships will hover at the indicated range even when their weapons aren't ready. I believe this is true regardless of rate of fire.

Oleg, I bet you're right about the firing order. I think if you specify "Nearest" (or, say,
"Has Weapons/Nearest") as firing priority, with Max/DGH, they'll fire before backing off.

What I hate though is when it fires and backs off, but backs off towards a bunch of enemies, when there is a clearly better way to move way from all foes.

PvK

Fyron

November 17th, 2003, 10:23 PM

PvK:
Regardless of your extreme nit-picking over semantics, my arguments are still valid.

I was trying to keep the points focused to a few examples of what I meant when I said Fryon was over-generalizing in specific Posts. His Last counter-arguments tend to smear between issues, which would be a bit of work to go back and re-direct. The issues tended to be explainable from the same sources. The issues were often the same issue.

* Ya, it's 1 or 2 combat speed difference between baseships and battleships with the same equipment. However, it's still not enough to keep baseships from having certain efficiencies, such as better mounts and the ability to pile about twice as much equipment on per set of other components, etc. My point was simply that they are not "extremely inefficient" - rather, they have some strengths and some weaknesses.You seem to have missed a few sentences of my post where I discussed that phrase...

I never said they had no efficiencies (I in fact mentioned several of them), and that does not even follow from the "extremely inefficient" phrase. Their inefficencies just outweigh the effeciencies in most situations, leading to such a conclusion.

* Fryon wrote: "in fact, you were the one advocating using torpedoes against someone using APBs and max range!" Not even! I was just explaining what advantages there were in that style of fighting, while repeatedly saying that I thought they were still a weaker weapon than APB XII so I'd be surprised if it made the difference. Your post on it seems to be advocating such a thing. Perhaps that is not what you meant to say in that post... let me nit-pick over a single term for a few days here... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

What I was arguing about, were Fryon's exaggerations on other details.It is rather rude to talk about someone in the third person when they are "present", you know.

* He's continuing to miss or dodge the point that while reloading and unable to fire, it's better to be as far away as possible, instead of close.Not at all. I never once said that it was bad to get farther away while reloading, nor anything approaching such a statement. I have just been saying that unless you have a speed advantage, you can not get away from being shot at with same or shorter ranged weapons. All you can hope to do at best is keep the same distance. Which we seem to be in agreeance on... what are we arguing over here?

He's either failing to understand what I've explained several times,I have understood everything you have said. Please don't post veiled insults again (or things that can come across as such). Thanks.

or hoping no one will notice that he's just repeating an unrelated argument which I agree with, that unmodded APB XII does do a lot more total damage than Quantum Torps.Your argument seems to be different than what you have been posting then... perhaps you should try to be a little clearer?

* As for statements about the frequency of battles so huge that all ships are smashed in one turn, etc., that largely depends upon circumstances. In my experience, I've seen many battles where Max Range/Don't Get Hurt has allowed a smaller fleet to defeat a much larger one.Certainly that was not the only difference in those cases. In my experience, the only time I have seen that happen is when that smaller fleet has a significant advantage in to hit chances (such as drastically better racial bonuses, a tech advantage, or those ridiculous talismans). Or if they have a tech advantage in the weapons department and can deal a higher damage ratio...

I've also watched replays with hundreds of ships in them, where many ships were not destroyed on the first turn they came under fire. Many of course were destroyed in one turn, so it's true that often you don't get a chance to run away, but sometimes you do, and it only takes sometimes to give an advantage, even if a slight one, which is what I had meant to argue.But unless you can move faster than the enemy, you can not run away! They will always be able to follow you, at worst just maintaining the same difference. (and don't take yet another sentence quoted out of context)

[ November 17, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Maerlyn

November 17th, 2003, 10:42 PM

3:3;
your turn PVK! go! go! go!...

P.S.: thanx for the flowers once more deccan http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 17, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

oleg

November 17th, 2003, 11:06 PM

I am on the PvK side. After all. his mod is better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Hey, hey, just kidding !!! Oleg goes under cover. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

November 17th, 2003, 11:58 PM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif His mod is just playable SP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

PvK

November 18th, 2003, 12:05 AM

Fryon wrote:
Regardless of your extreme nit-picking over semantics, my arguments are still valid.
Naturally. I wasn't denying the validity of most of your arguments, as far as they go. I was pointing out the exaggeration of some of your assertions in some of your one-liner emails, and some conclusions about the uselessness of some techniques.

I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you what points I was and wasn't trying to make. I don't think we actually disagree on much here, except for what the likely situations are, and therefore which decisions make sense, and which techniques are useful, in unmodded play. I think our play experiences have been a bit different, from our different play styles, and the different games we've been in.

There might be a few disagreements about details of the effects of Max Range/DGH tactic, but I'd just be repeating myself, or bringing up more play examples, so I don't see much point in doing that. I don't intend any offense, but one and/or both of us have been failing to follow the other's line of thinking when making counter-arguments on some points.

Fryon wrote:

It is rather rude to talk about someone in the third person when they are "present", you know.
Not if one isn't addressing that person. I had no intention of being rude. When I referred to you in the third person, I was responding to Maerlyn's post:

Maerlyn wrote:
...
if you ask me: its 2:2 until now, but both of you should try to stick to the assumptions made in the beginning and not bring in possible additional weapons or other components in order to strenghten your arguments. (as both of you did)
PvK

oleg

November 18th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif His mod is just playable SP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif SP is all what I enjoy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , and I don't like multiplayer - put your definiton here about the concept of play before your inuendo !

PvK

November 18th, 2003, 12:54 AM

Gee, I prefer Proportions MP to Proportions SP, myself.

PvK

CNCRaymond

November 18th, 2003, 01:03 AM

I wish I would have gotten into this discussion when it was started. In one of my current games, a race is using Torpedo class ships with APB's. His fleet is set to Max range attacks and thus far he has been very successful with these tactics.

When used correctly Torpedo heavy fleets can be most effective.

Fyron

November 18th, 2003, 01:15 AM

PkV wrote:

Naturally. I wasn't denying the validity of most of your arguments, as far as they go. I was pointing out the exaggeration of some of your assertions in some of your one-liner emails, and some conclusions about the uselessness of some techniques.One-liner emails? Of course if you take single sentences out of context they tend to transmit a vastly different meaning than they had originally... I was not exaggerating anywhere.

I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you what points I was and wasn't trying to make. I don't think we actually disagree on much here, except for what the likely situations are, and therefore which decisions make sense, and which techniques are useful, in unmodded play. I think our play experiences have been a bit different, from our different play styles, and the different games we've been in.I see.

I don't intend any offense, but one and/or both of us have been failing to follow the other's line of thinking when making counter-arguments on some points.I don't really see that, unless you want to say that the line of thinking differs from the content of the Posts... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Not if one isn't addressing that person. I had no intention of being rude. When I referred to you in the third person, I was responding to Maerlyn's post: Which is a problem, as a forum thread is more akin to a big conversation with everyone in the room than separate converastions in different places (when the discussion remains on the same topic, of course)...

PvK

November 18th, 2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One-liner emails? Of course if you take single sentences out of context they tend to transmit a vastly different meaning than they had originally... I was not exaggerating anywhere.
I meant one-liner Posts. And looking back, I see only one of them was literally a one-liner post. These were the assertions I was referring to originally, and these were the points I was trying to stick to in each part of the discussion.

At first I thought you meant to exaggerate, but now it sounds like you maintain them to be true, within your doctrine, where you assume certain situations and game style choices are the way to go. Apparently this includes expressions like "extremely inefficient" to mean "have disadvantages that make me usually not want to use them, because I don't expect their strengths to come into play". Any misunderstandings others might have about this, they have to pry out of you with lengthy arguments.

I don't know of a way to link to a specific post, but below is the text of the email which I thought defined the topic.

I wrote:

Sorry Wardad. I was just exaggerating and teasing Fryon about his exaggerated teases. Staying on topic, I'd say Fryon was either wrong or exaggerating or incomplete about such things as:

"... Baseships, which are extremely innefficient..."
- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".

"That [Taera: "PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned."] only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways."
- These are exaggerations. Max range with ships that need to reload will tend to improve their effect and survivability, unless there are so many ships that they can't actually move backwards. Also, even in huge/dense ship battles, there are still a significant number of ships which don't get blown up in a single turn.

In reply to Ed Kolis:
"Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range...

Of course that wouldn't work when the enemy has faster engines, but then for assaults against satellites, bases, and planets... "

Fryon quipped:
"It also does not work very well when the enemy goes the same speed as you either."
- Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading.

Now, I'm not asserting that such tactics are enough to tip the scales set by the rather lame torp stats versus the rather good APB XII stats in the unmodded game, but they do have positive effects in many situations.

It was clear to me from Fryon's winking smilies (" ") that he was teasing and exaggerating, but I thought maybe some newer players might get the wrong idea.

PvK
Looking back at that, I think it still summarizes my position on each point. All your (Fryon's) statements which I quoted are based on valid observations, but are over-statements of them, or at least represent a specific doctrine rather than being valid general statements.

PvK

Fyron

November 18th, 2003, 03:23 AM

At first I thought you meant to exaggerate, but now it sounds like you maintain them to be true, within your doctrine, where you assume certain situations and game style choices are the way to go. Apparently this includes expressions like "extremely inefficient" to mean "have disadvantages that make me usually not want to use them, because I don't expect their strengths to come into play". Any misunderstandings others might have about this, they have to pry out of you with lengthy arguments. Again, refer to the post about the phrase "extremely inefficient"... I already said it was not the best term to use there. It was not lengthy, it was a single sentence! And it was several Posts ago, yet you are still hung up on that single phrase. And, of course, taken in context in the original post that term was used in, it is not quite as extreme as you are making it out to be.

My "doctrine" is just the mechanics of SE4. nothing special. "Certain situations" are the most common ones given late game, where APB XII and QT V (as well as baseships) come into play. Huge fleets are the rule of thumb; those that split their fleets into many small squadrons tend to get overrun by those grouping their ships into big fleets. Unless, of course, you play high tech start, which is a whole different beast.

Note:
These are Posts, not emails.

[ November 18, 2003, 01:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK

November 18th, 2003, 04:05 AM

Well if you like dismissive exaggerations:

Perhaps you had more repetitive play experiences in your unmodded SE4 MP game sessions than I did, featuring everyone waiting to have thousands of ships with APB XII before starting any wars.

PvK

Fyron

November 18th, 2003, 04:10 AM

I usually start wars with just a few dozen ships armed with DUCs, sometimes with PPBs... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Those people that wait until they get APB XII before they start conquering usually get overrun by those that start off their happy-go-lucky conquering sprees earlier.

And, I used no so-called "dismissive exaggerations".

[ November 18, 2003, 02:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Maerlyn

November 18th, 2003, 10:29 AM

ok guys, thanx once more. and I still would really appreciate more strategy discussions like these!

(like f.e. how do this DUC ships you, Fyron, use in early combat, look like? (given low tech start, no special tech tree selected, and an unmodded game.) I guess light cruisers with Propulsion lvl 1 and mounted DUCs lvl IV, but are you already using armor/combat support/sensors or any stuff like these? are you supporting them with a few Capital Ship Missiles lvl 1 ships? are you going for armor or combat support/sensors or PD first in your tech tree? are you using mine sweepers, as early mine defens is very common, how many mine sweepers do you usually use in the beginning? and so on and so on...)

but beside these strategic discussions I would suggest that both of you, PVK and Fyron, end your discussion about "exaggerations", "One-liner emails", "over-statements" and the definition of "extremly inefficient" right here.

let me asure you that these was a very nice discussions with an awful lot of good points on both sides, but it is a characteristic of a good discussion that there cannot be a "winner".
(and since we have reached the point where both start repeating themselfs I�d like to call this a tie at this point and end it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

however, thanx a lot! and some answers for my questions to Fyron up there would be very appreciated. you can easily rip apart these answers of Fyron, cant you PVK http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (as he will start exaggerating again for sure http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

[ November 18, 2003, 10:00: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

tesco samoa

November 18th, 2003, 06:24 PM

P.S.

Both Fyrons and PVK's stances on combat work for engagements under 400* ships....

Once you get to the magical 400 barrior forget everything you were doing before. Its a complete new system of fleet setups etc... Due to the fact that the game cannot handle placing all those ships effectivly.

This is where the BaseShip vs Battleship really shines if your baseship is designed properlly vs your opponent. As the first 3 to 4 rounds will be complete slugfests. So it is recommended that you punch very hard on the first round. And then soak the damage during the receiving round.

For less than 400

If a player is using the BB system against your base ships. Attack him on warp points... This will be to your advantage. If they are using SD 's or the engine one on the APB BB... They will close to a range where your BS will be able to hit the BB and inflict some damage. And always set you base ship to target nearest nearest nearest... with a Point blank then ram stragety. Your shield depleters and engine destroyers will have a greater range and when one ship slows down an enemy BB the next BS will destroy it

Another advantage of BS vs BB is that when you lose ships vs happiness... it does not affect it as much as you have less ships http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif --- So I believe

* -- number picked out of a hat...

tesco samoa

November 18th, 2003, 06:25 PM

Maerlyn

PVK and Fryon have been enjoying this style of conversation for as long as i can remember. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

November 19th, 2003, 06:53 AM

Oleg and PvK (and anyone else), would you like to submit some strategies to the Ultimate Strategies Mod (http://usm.spaceempires.net/)? It would be a great service to the community. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PvK

November 20th, 2003, 05:20 AM

If/when I get some time and inclination, sure, though I'll have to study what's already there.

PvK

Atrocities

January 2nd, 2004, 10:25 PM

This thread has a lot of excellent topics and discussion in it. A must read for any new player.

Fyron

January 2nd, 2004, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
If/when I get some time and inclination, sure, though I'll have to study what's already there.

PvK Had time or inclination yet?

PvK

January 3rd, 2004, 12:16 AM

Nope. I had (made myself take) a bit of time and energy, but was more inclined to do other things, such as try to fiddle with improvements to Proportions mod (didn't get very far, unfortunately), playtesting the next SE4 patch beta, running my CMBB campaign, and playing Dominions II.

I will mention an interesting technique I've tried with some success, though. Fleets with just a few ships in them (i.e. 2-5 ships per fleet), in a formation designed to have them operate as an actual team. This allows you to design the ships as a small complementary squadron. For example, you can have an anti-ship ship concentrate on firepower, and then give it 1-4 escorts that will deploy immediately around it and provide support such as PD, or shield buffers or vice versa - if your opponent tends to target largest or most powerful, you can put a large ship that can take a lot of damage (lots of shields, before enemy has shield depleters), with one or more other ships that have all the firepower but won't be targeted because the enemy will favor the "damage soaker". Or other ideas - depends on the enemy. Anyway, I've had some good success with this sort of thing in some situations, particularly in some competetive games where I needed to do something fancy to try to get an advantage. Definitely a micro-management exercise, however.

PvK

oleg

January 3rd, 2004, 05:16 AM

Yes, it works fine when you employ less than 30 ships. After that it is a pain to Shift-Attack 10+ fleets http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

But I like this tactic in Proportions or AIC games where I seldom have too many ships.

Atrocities

January 3rd, 2004, 09:36 AM

and playing Dominions II. Do you like Dominions II and if can you tell us little more about the game. (I know it a shrapnel released game, but nothing else.)

thorfrog

January 5th, 2004, 09:37 PM

I'd like to hear how many of you have modded torpedoes. This is what I changed:
-added +15% to hit bonus

Any other ideas??

Fyron

January 6th, 2004, 02:52 AM

P&N, Devnull and Adamant all have them with bonuses to hit. Devnull gives no bonus to AM Torp, and +10 to all QT. Adamant and P&N give +15 to AM Torp, and +17 to +25 to QT.

[ January 06, 2004, 00:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK

January 6th, 2004, 04:01 AM

I modded torpedoes in Proportions mod. I think the main change was to simply increase damage from pathetic to respectable. I might have increased their supply usage a bit too. The low-level ones are even good in Proportions on a cost-efficiency basis. I know many players like to increase torpedo accuracy based I guess on the notion that "they're guided", but I tend to like them more as a hard-hitting weapon.

The unmodded torps are pretty contemptible in my opinion. It's very hard to find good things to say about them, especially at low levels. Only the "first shot wipeout" or "hit and run" aspects seem to have any chance of giving them any advantage over other weapons.

PvK

Fyron

January 6th, 2004, 04:04 AM

Forgot to mention that I increased their range as well in Adamant. Didn't think they needed a damage boost with both range and to hit increase...

[ January 06, 2004, 02:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK

January 6th, 2004, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Do you like Dominions II and if can you tell us little more about the game. (I know it a shrapnel released game, but nothing else.) I love Dominions I and II! At the things it does best, there is no competition. Excellent and extremely varied turn-based strategy in an original-yet-historically-derived highly-magical fantasy/medieval setting. It's one of the few games that combines an enormous number of factors, units, equipment, conditions, and stuff into one setting, and does a very good job of their values and interactions, so things stay in proportion and generally make sense, and there are always new situations springing up, and new strategies and techniques to try, even after huge amounts of play. Heaps of detail and humor and weird and interesting stuff.

If it might be your sort of game, I'd recommend trying the demo, and/or visiting the forum topic here.

PvK

Fyron

January 6th, 2004, 04:43 AM

Dominions is too complicated in areas that should be simple, and too simple in areas that should be complicated. The interface is one of the worst offenders. Most of the game's information is not presented in a very well designed manner. Too many times am I left wondering "what the hell just happened," "what the hell does this do?" or "how does this work?" There are no global reports to be found, at all. There is no way to tell a territory to repeatedly build some units. You have to click many many times to do so. I have no idea at all how the tax incomes are figured out, and there is nothing in the game to indicate how such is arrived. It seems loosely based on population, but that is obviously not all there is too it. I also have no idea why they seem to vary from turn to turn. The resources my territories have vary over time, for no reason that I can see. Often, I will have some territories that NEVER recruit any units, no matter how large of a gold surplus I have. And yes, they do have some resource production. A lot of the log Messages the game sends are lacking in useful information. There is no way I can figure out to match the name of a nation to its territory, flag, or anything it possesses. This is just poor game design. There should at the very least be a window you can access that displays all empire names next to their flags. Starting a new game just to figure out which empire is which is an absurd solution. Even with maximal useage of gold income and as much expansion as can be done, the AI still manages to ammass several times as many units as I ever can. Even when I manage to defeat their forces that are attacking me, they just bring in 2-3 times as many as they just lost, in the next turn or two. I am thinking it has hidden cheating bonuses to income and such so over used in games... The unrest level of territories doesn't seem to be very consistent. There are too many undefined options for the orders for your troops in combat. There is no simple indicator telling you whether you have troops in a territory or not on the map. There should also be a separate indicator telling you whether you have heroes or not there. I could go on, but I shall stop here. All in all, Dominions 2 (as well as 1) come up lacking to me. It does have some nice ideas, but the game seems rather unsophisticated. Maybe I should go post this in the Dominions forum...

[ January 06, 2004, 02:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]