Ship weapon loadout

[oogs]

I'm rather new to the game... still playing the demo. One thing that is still eluding me after several 100-turn runs is the optimal weapon load for a ship.

I have tried several things:
-All DF weapons (maxing out the demo's tech level), but these failed miserably vs the AI's missile ships.
-All missiles, which has enabled me to play ~50 turns w/o loosing a ship and winning every battle... that is, untill I tried shooting down satelites.
-A mix of the two, but that is a bit more complicated.


In my current game I am using the all missile ships, and I have integrated light carriers (I'm researching carries now). My missile ships - while great at dealing with enemy ships - cannot touch satellites or fighters. They are great because I can pretty much ignore defense and equip them with as many engines and missiles as possible, so they get in firing range, fire 7-8 missles each, then run away for a couple turns.
The reason I stopped using all DF ships was beacuse they needed to be fast, have lots of weapons AND lots of defense (so they can withstand any pounding that occurs before/while they are in range). This is also what is making me hesitate using a mix of DF and missiles.
Is there any sort of general rule when it comes to outfitting ships, or do you have any suggestions for how I should try to outfit my ships (keep in mind that the demo doesn't let you get above cruisers).

[Phoenix-D]

Keep all single-type weapon ships EXCEPT you want Point Defense Cannons. These will fire on incoming missiles, fighters, etc. They also get a 70% to-hit bonus and abosultely butcher what they can hit.

DF weapons are actually better than missiles once you get them high enough. Missiles simply don't fire enough. Remember on your Cruisers and Light Cruisers to click the Weap Mount button and use Large Mounts for your direct fire weapons. that increases they're effectiveness quite a bit.

[Fyron]

PDC are the bane of missile strategies. Far too powerful in unmodded game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I notice that you signed on to the #se4 IRC channel but then left after less than a minute...

[Phoenix-D]

Also keep in mind that pure PDC ships won't close on the enemy since they think they have nothing to shoo t at. You must include at least one other weapon.

[Baron Munchausen]

Like others have said here, keep your ship types 'pure'. All seekers or all DF, and a few PDC in each ship. Give the seeker ships "maximum weapons range" strategy and give the DF ships something like "Optimum Weapons Range" or maybe "Short Weapons Range" or "Point Blank" if they are shorter-ranged powerful weapons like Ripper Beams or the Graviton Hellbore. Carriers should have 'Don't Get Hurt' as their strategy and no weapons except some PDC. Make the carrier a big launcher with as many cargo and fighter bays as possible and let the fighters engage the enemy. It's good to combine many different types, just keep them fleeted into distinct Groups with the proper strategies.

[oogs]

Well, I'm quickly adding "defensive" ships (with tons of shields/armor and some DF weapons) to bear the brunt of the punishment, as well as pure DF. Of course, since I can't get any contruction upgrades, it takes forever to build new ships :\ I would add PDC ships, but I'm gearing my fleets towards a specific enemy (the demo will run out before I have a chance to properly engage anyone else) that doesn't use missiles.


As for my stopping by on IRC... the channel seemed rather empty, and I don't usually hang out on gamesnet.

Also, out of curiosity: is there any way to "link" construction yard together. i.e. if I have 3 or 4 bases with construction yards, can I group them in some way so that they combine their resources? (if that doesn't make sense, just picture it as each construction yard building a piece of the ship and then combining the whole thing)

[Fyron]

Well SE4 is a niche game in a niche market... you can't expect there to be 100s of people ready to start chatting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Why does the server the channel is on matter? Its still chat just the same.

No, you can not link space yards together.

[Phoenix-D]

The server matters because some IRC clients don't connect to more than one server at once without multiple instances of the client open. Which can get confunsing.

[Fyron]

Simple solution: get a better client. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Trillian for example.

[oogs]

they can! with the newest Version of mirc (i don't know about the older ones) type this in:

/s -m [servername]

where [servername] is something like irc.gamesnet.com

i'll head back in and idle though. maybe other people will read this and do the same http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 16, 2004, 04:45: Message edited by: oogs ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by oogs:
Also, out of curiosity: is there any way to "link" construction yard together. i.e. if I have 3 or 4 bases with construction yards, can I group them in some way so that they combine their resources? (if that doesn't make sense, just picture it as each construction yard building a piece of the ship and then combining the whole thing) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, but only in mods.

What you do is:
1) Build a non-spaceyard facility.
2) Upgrade it to a facility with SY ability
3) Enjoy the fast build rates since the SY abilities on the planet stack fully.

All you need to do is mod in another facility that has no SY ability and has the same family number as a regular spaceyard. Place it before the regular SY in your facilities.txt, and presto.

[Ed Kolis]

But remember, don't try any modding until you have the full Version, or you're working on a duplicate of the game data, because the demo doesn't like you messing with the data (you could always put in the full game data after all! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

(SJ, you always make things too complicated! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

[Paul1980au]

Yeah this is an aspect to the game - it limits i guess excessive ship building. I say shell out the $$$$ for the full game instead of trying to mod the demo - and perhaps if enought people pay for the game the price might be reduced by say 30% within the next 3 months.

[Fyron]

The game has sold a huge amount of copies for this sort of release model... it has been Shrapnel's best selling game for years. Dominions 2 is up there, but I don't think they have ever stated if it has sold more copies than SE4, but I doubt that it has at this point.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The game has sold a huge amount of copies for this sort of release model... it has been Shrapnel's best selling game for years. Dominions 2 is up there, but I don't think they have ever stated if it has sold more copies than SE4, but I doubt that it has at this point. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If Dominions sells better than SEIV, we can always make a Dominions Mod that will play even better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif - Hey, DomII is a nice game, no offence intended, I just can't stop marveling how flexible is the SEIV design kit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[PvK]

Someone attempted to mod SE4 to a fantasy setting ... not much actual hope there. There are many things which are hard-coded in SE4 which you just can't overcome with a mod. There's no way to make the combat and experience systems much more sophisticated, and they're pretty limited. I've tried modding Aaron with email barrages about probability and cause & effect, but they didn't get very far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

(Besides, Dominions II is wunderbar, and is getting more and more mod options added.)

PvK

[Fyron]

Actually... Spoon's Fantasy Mod was looking quite good... he just never got around to finishing it.

Dominions is ok, certainly not "wunderbar."

[ January 21, 2004, 00:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[PvK]

No, Dominions tramples ***, Fryon. You're wrong.

[oogs]

but hey, all we have to do is wait for SEV http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


and i did shell out the $$$.. it should arrive by mail this week.

[Fyron]

No it doesn't. Every time I play the demo, I find more things wrong than right with it.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Fyron, Fyron, Fyron. Are you getting this topic off topic? That's my job. *shakes head* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[PvK]

Fryon, you find problems with everything that isn't quite to your tastes, and then you make annoying blanket statements even about other people who manage to appreciate what you can't.

All right already. Not everyone can get into it, and maybe you're one of them, but to me, and to many many many very happy fans, it is very wonderful. A real joy. Go ahead and don't like it yourself, but don't contradict my appreciation of it, please.

Why's it so great. See the bubbly post I just wrote here, on the Dominions II forum. (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=74&t=001035)

(This is way off topic, but this whole thread is way off topic, even when it was about SE4. Ship Weapon Loadout? Oh yeah - the new player needed to try PDC - and he did, and is getting the game. The old topic is dead; long live the new topic. Dominions II is great! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

PvK

[Ed Kolis]

Yeah, that's the spirit! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by oogs:
my topic was boarded and taken over by the enemy! ahhh! i knew i should have researched forum thread capture before posting.... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
http://seiv.pbw.cc/tss.jpg

[ January 21, 2004, 13:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Fyron]

PvK:
Gee, sorry for having a dissenting voice. And why can you use blanket statements and others can not? Hmm... just midly hypocritical.

Geo:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif At least you appreciate my contributions a great deal. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[QuarianRex]

Geo,
ROTFLMAO!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Wardad]

LOL! That's a good one Geo! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I bet we see it more often... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

http://seiv.pbw.cc/tss.jpg

[ January 21, 2004, 17:58: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[Fyron]

Ah, the love.

[Combat Wombat]

Oh man thats great stuff and don't worry fyron pictures like that only hang around forums for a few years http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[oogs]

rofl... that's awesome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[spoon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Actually... Spoon's Fantasy Mod was looking quite good... he just never got around to finishing it.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm really realy close, though. And I like to keep it that way... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[oogs]

i sure hope you're not trying to pull a "duke nukem forever" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I heard it has its own Category in the Vaporware awards... something like "Lifetime achievement award".

[Fyron]

You had better finish it, and soon!

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
PvK:
Gee, sorry for having a dissenting voice. And why can you use blanket statements and others can not? Hmm... just midly hypocritical.
... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because my blanket statements were either about my own appreciation for the game, or a well-deserved sarcastic reply to your unneeded interjection.

PvK

[oogs]

my topic was boarded and taken over by the enemy! ahhh! i knew i should have researched forum thread capture before posting....

[Fyron]

So blanket statements of appreciation are ok, but blanket statements of non-appreciation are not? Again, just mildly hypocritical.

[Paul1980au]

This blanket assumption thread has really gone places hasnt it lol.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Fyron, this thread will be well-remembered the next time you comment on my spam. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

*Narf, once more in the spectater's gallery. Otherwise known as the Peanut Place.*

[Paul1980au]

Ive got blanket assumptions about spamming to but i shall keep quite on that one. A good email spam filter is a good start and a firewall and so forth.

[Renegade 13]

I've got just one thing to say:


"CALM DOWN!"

That's all

[oogs]

/me heads back to tinker with his ship weapon loadout. so far, i've decided that heavily shielded PD ships with lots of DF and M ships do the trick. oh, fighters are awesome too... it's funny to watch the AI use a carrier with ~240 fighters http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Just play a PBW game and you will see how fighters are nearly useless... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Paul1980au]

Would like to see new fighter only weapons. Perhaps experience levels for fighter squardans ?

We have mines, fighters, sats, drons and what else could we have - fighters that could deploy mines in battle that could allow them to retreat and catch enemy ships ?

Fighter killing satelites ?

Throw some ideas around folks

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Ive got blanket assumptions about spamming to but i shall keep quite on that one. A good email spam filter is a good start and a firewall and so forth.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fyron calls my off-topic Posts spam; that was what i was refering to. don't mind Fyron, he's just arguementive.

[Fyron]

Oh don't worry, some of my Posts in this thread are spam too.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

which is what i was bugging you about.

i have this urge to bug people who are overly serious to much. and you fit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Loser]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Just play a PBW game and you will see how fighters are nearly useless... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And yet, just this turn, an enemy brought a whole fleet of carriers and minor ships against me...

This should be interesting.

[geoschmo]

Hmmmm, I don't know Primitive. Not that I am wont to defend a blanket statment by Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , I would have to say this one comes as close to being correct as any I have seen him make.

I've been in a few Koth games, and have yet to see fighters be more then a minor nuisance. Easily countered without too much trouble. Of course I have seen cases where they were a factor, but in those cases I have always been of the opinion the mere presence of any enemy forces was the factor, ie controlling colonization of a system. That the fact that they were fighters was irrelevant, and that a couple of actual warships would have been just as much of a factor.

About the only thing I can see them good for is a temporary stop gap measure. You get to a system first and don't have time to build a space yard and to get a warship built, so you pump out some fighters and cover the warp points while you bring up some ships.

I guess that alone keeps them from being totally useless, but would still fit into a definition of "nearly useless", which is what he said anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

I do not see why people are so concerned about me making alleged blanket statements. Everyone does so.

Primitive, as long as you do not do something stupid like stop using PDCs, you can definitely defeat all but the most massive hordes of fighters. But that requires being attacked by a much larger fleet of ships, which would probably slaughter you anyways if they had just used warships in the first place. Fighters can be useful in the extreme early game, before PDC becomes prevalent, but once you start putting a few higher level PDC on all your ships, fighters fall easily in large numbers. Hence, nearly useless. There are only a very small number of game situations in which fighters are not totally useless. KOTH play is not representative of SE4 PBW in general, because it generally forces at least some the combat to be occuring in those early stages of the game, before you can stick 2-3 PDC Vs on each warship without losing a significant amount of hull space.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I do not see why people are so concerned about me making alleged blanket statements. Everyone does so.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not the way You do Fyron, You are the Champ.

Fighters are:
- Very usefull in very early game to block warppoints and take down lone Scouts, Raiders and Colonyships.
- Usefull in early scirmishes not because of their power, but because they force the enemy to keep their fleets together. Excellent as delaying tactics after that early breakthrough. Very few players will move to the next system with a few small stacks of fighters on the loose.
- Usefull again in mid/late games (if you can handle the micromanagement). Large fighters with Shields and Armor are almost imune to PDC and very hard to hit with ordinary weapons.

But the most important thing with fighters is their impact on the economics of the game. A small investment in research and the showing of a few hundred fighters early forces the other guy to go heavy on PDC. This will cost him much more than what you have invested in the fighters.
Small excample: Putting 1 extra PDC on a LC only costs 250 Mins. For a fleet of 100 (very common in KOTH) it adds up to 25 000. You also need about 10 more ships to get the same amount of offensive/defensive power, another 60-70 000. Then you have to pay maintanance throughout training, transport to the front and waiting for battle (lets say 10 turns on average), "oups" thats another 125 000 minerals.

To call fighters nearly useless is just plain wrong. It is one of the most usefull weapons in the game (after mines) if used properly. I would dare to say that if you don't find fighters usefull, you have never fought someone who knows how and when to use them, or you have never done the math on the economics.

Now for some real useless stuff: Satelittes and Weapon platforms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

BTW: Missile ships can do most of the same thing fighters can, but at a greater cost.

BBTW:
Fun with fighters http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Try this one in late game: Put 1-2 Fighterbays on each capital ship. Load with large fighters with Shields, Armor, ECM and Small Rocket Pods. Make sure the fighters have the same speed as the ships. Attack a fleet of equal size (this is especially fun in warppoint defence/offence). Depending on the other guys settings, two things can happen: A - He wastes a lot of shots from his main guns trying to hit the fighters or B - your fighters will get through and do some real damage. Cool thing (for the fighter guy) is that there is no smart defensive settings (I know of). If he let his main guns fire at the fighters he wastes a lot of firepower firing on small stacks (I have seen 20 shots from PPB5s fired at 2 fighters), If he chooses the "do not fire on fighters" option he is very vulnerable to a "real" fighter attack next time. Do NOT try this against the Talisman http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[primitive]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Just play a PBW game and you will see how fighters are nearly useless... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Another blanket statement Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

It’s time you get yourself back in the KOTH league, so we can teach you some creative use of fighters. There is nothing more fun than alternating fighter-heavy fleets with DF-fleets. There is also the added fun of watching your enemy guess if he should use the “Don’t fire at fighters” option and his targeting sequence. Whatever he chooses there is that special fighter design/fleet setup that will make his fleet look like Bambi on ice unless he has PDC to spare (Which is of course when you attack with DF-ships only http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Those 100 K researchpoints and some minerals invested in fighters early is probably one of the best investments available in any cut-throat game.

[Fyron]

Not the way You do Fyron, You are the Champ. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, whatever.

I have faced numerous opponents making good use of fighters, and have never lost more than token battles against them.

If you look back at my post, you will see that I directly refered to them being useful in the very early game, which is most of what you described. In the rest of the vast majority of game situations, they are not useful except as distractions.

125k minerals is a turn or two of production, though hardly a relevant figure because it gets paid over a long period of time. The amount of resources invested to get the fighters and carriers strong enough to actually require extra PDC easily match or outweigh that figure. Their effects on economics are trivial at best, except in the very early game, which rarely has wars that will lead to your victory overall, except in the small percent of MP games that are just 1 v 1 affairs.

Late game fighters are most certainly not virtually immune to PDC fire. Late game fleets have huge numbers of ships, and PDC Vs have good range, allowing for a lot of ships to stack their firing ranges over single squares, resulting in lots and lots of PDC shooting down fighters (not as fast as low tech fighters, but still fast enough) before the fighters ever get a chance to fire.

Again, I will state that fighters are nearly useless. You may think that phrase equates to a lower degree of usefulness than I do, but that is not my fault.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Again, I will state that fighters are nearly useless. You may think that phrase equates to a lower degree of usefulness than I do, but that is not my fault. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">When advising others, wouldn’t it be wise to use the words as they was intended and not make up your own definitions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


nearly Pronunciation Key (nîr l )
adv.
1. Almost but not quite: The coat nearly fits.
2. In a close manner; intimately: a matter nearly affecting our interests. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Here is a blanket statement from me (which I’ll be happy to prove BTW).
In smaller games (KOTH type), intelligent use of fighters is a game winner more often than not.

And here is another one (also easily provable).
Fighters are a very useful tool in late game if used correctly.

It takes skill and a well thought out strategy (and a lot of micromanagement) to get full use of late game fighters. That few people use them in late game does not mean they are useless. I have personally used them with great success and had them used against me with equally great success (for the other guy).

Fighters are a great tool. In fact fighters are one of the things making SEIV a great strategy game, promoting skill and imagination instead of just brute power.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
BTW: Missile ships can do most of the same thing fighters can, but at a greater cost.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry Primitive. I disagree with you on fighters, but the discussion is at least interesting. Missles I cannot agree with this at all. Missles are not nearly useless past the middle of the game, they are completely so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif In the space of 1 CSM you can put 2 and a half PDC, more then enough to counter the missle considering they fire three times as often. And you can't get tricksy with missles and put ECM or shields to make them tougher like you can with the fighters. And the missles are three to five times as expensive per Kt then the PDC. So on either a tactical or an econmic basis you can quite easily see that missles are non-competative once PDC become widely available. It's not a matter of just spending more for more missles, because your opponent can counter the more missles for less cost. The numbers get worse for you the more missles you use. They only work against a totally unprepared enemy. Unless you are talking about a mod or something.

[ January 23, 2004, 14:24: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[primitive]

Looks like I have a bit trouble with explaining myself here (surprise, surprise).

I am not a fan of missiles because I like fighters better. Missile ships are indeed both expensive and useless in large battles, but early in the game they will win one-on-one battles with DUC ships. So the thing they can do for you are early claiming of systems and forcing the other guy to use larger fleets (running convoys). If not most of what fighters can do, at least its some http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Winning in SEIV is all about economics. While (early) fighters (and even more so, missiles) are weak against a well prepared fleet, the fact that you have them is the key to victory. Get your enemy paranoid and make him waste more resources than you do and you are already halfway there.

The secret to fighters is like that old song “the Gambler” (hope Gryphin or the Tabby don’t see this post or I will never hear the end of it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

You've got to know
When to hold 'em,
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away,
Know when to run.

BTW:
I dished WPs and Sats earlier. Will nobody step up an defend their honor ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Growltigger]

Primitive, the "Tabby" has seen your post and yes, it will not be the end of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I am more ginger and black, rather than tabby anyhow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

I have never played a game against humans, so dont have the depth of knowledge that the rest of you do.

In the early game, I think fighters are devastating if they catch you unawares. But the AI rarely manages that. I am sure a cunning human would be able to do it, but it seems a hell of a waste of resources to build a DF fleet and a fighter fleet to spring a trap on your foe.

Satellites are useful in the early game, and I think useful in the later games, if you have enough of them. The problem comes with their placement as often, they are on the wrong side of the planet from where your enemy is. Large satellites for remote mining are always useful!

I like weapons platforms, I always have some on my planets, with a mix of PDC and Phased Polaron Beams on large mounts. PDC stop errant missiles or fighters from nuking your planet, the PPBs with their enhanced range make incoming ships pay.

In any event, whatever the level of the game, you need to use everything for a tiered defence. A mobile fleet to hit the enemy in space, mines in orbit so the enemy has to use sweepers to get through, sats and WPs and make the bugger pay if nothing else

[ January 23, 2004, 16:11: Message edited by: Growltigger ]

[Fyron]

You're whole point of making the enemy paranoid is irrelevant. You do not need to go crazy with PDC to counter both missiles and fighters, 2-3 per ship plus a few ships loaded with PDC to fighter-hunt, will do quite nicely, and has a minimal effect on your economy. Even adding an extra PDC to have 4 on larger ships has little to no real effect on your economy or fighting power. Now, if you do something silly like have 8 PDC on all of your ships, that will ruin you, but not because of the fighters having been successful, but because you made some really poor decisions. Fighters and missiles take a lot more resources than a few extra PDC do, and the extra PDC are more effective per unit of resource at countering fighters or missiles (or both) than the fighters + carriers or missiles are at overcoming the PDC.

[ January 23, 2004, 16:18: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[geoschmo]

The only thing I would say in defense of WP's and sats is that they are no less effective then missles or fighters. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

I made use of WPs on my HW to thwart one person's attempted invasion with a fighter fleet once. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif All of their fighters were slaughtered, with no small loss of WPs, and my fleet of warships arriving next turn took out their carriers that had a few weapons on them, which would eventually have whittled away my planet (eventually).

[Wardad]

It is far better to have a couple of weapon platforms, then it is to give a scout or cloaked raider free rein.

I gave an AI hell by using a cloaked raider with plague bombs. Only the larger planets had WPs. The fighters finally finished off my raiders, after I killed a dozen planets.

WPs are not effective against large fleets. They just seem die to quickly and may not get a chance to shoot back.

[primitive]

GT:
Ginger and black you say. Well, I may have to adjust the colours on my monitor, cause you look more grey and brown to me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I used to love satelittes until I met Asmala in the Open tournament (5 player game). Had the border warpoint secured by a nice big stack of 100+ small and medium sats, with good weapons and max sensors (+ I was 20/20 berzerker). I felt very secure and content behind this formidable (I thought) wall. In comes Asmala with a trained fleet set on max range. Allthough within range, I could not hit his ships at all. Total dissaster and out goes the barbarian.

Satelittes have one BIG flaw. They can't hit trained ships/fleets unless they are stupid enough to get in close.

WPs are somewhat more usefull but only when used in large quantities. It's quite fun sneaking in a bunch of good WPs on a disputed planet as a surprise. As for detering raider ships/fleets, I only employ them as the third level of defence after fighters and mines.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You're whole point of making the enemy paranoid is irrelevant ......... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, you are wrong about this. Deception and finesse will win you just as many games as brute force. But since you seem lack the ability to even consider any ideas not of your own making as viable, there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by primitive:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You're whole point of making the enemy paranoid is irrelevant ......... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, you are wrong about this. Deception and finesse will win you just as many games as brute force. But since you seem lack the ability to even consider any ideas not of your own making as viable, there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Umm... obviously I considered your ideas, as I was able to come up with counter arguments. Your claim of me not having the ability to consider ideas of others is highly insulting. Is something wrong with discussing ideas and concepts without making it personal?

[ January 23, 2004, 18:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
Satelittes have one BIG flaw. They can't hit trained ships/fleets unless they are stupid enough to get in close.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Exactly, and fighters suffer from the same flaw. The fighters of course can move around a bit, but the range advantage of the PDC allows them to be taken out before the fighter weapons themselves come into range.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Exactly, and fighters suffer from the same flaw. The fighters of course can move around a bit, but the range advantage of the PDC allows them to be taken out before the fighter weapons themselves come into range. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Exactly. Fleet stacking of PDC weapons means those fighters have a huge amount of damage to soak up before they ever get a chance to fire.

[Parasite]

Originally posted by primitive:
I dished WPs and Sats earlier. Will nobody step up an defend their honor ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">WPs are good to put on beginning planets that may be out on a limb. If an enemy planet capture fleet comes along, the they can destroy the planet while destoying the WPs. leaving him nothing but the ashes to capture, or nothing at all. Not a base for him to use against you. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

[primitive]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by primitive:
Satelittes have one BIG flaw. They can't hit trained ships/fleets unless they are stupid enough to get in close.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Exactly, and fighters suffer from the same flaw. The fighters of course can move around a bit, but the range advantage of the PDC allows them to be taken out before the fighter weapons themselves come into range. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Know when to hold them" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
When your enemy have sufficient PDC ready, you hold them. You don't win many battles with them, but you win the war with economics. Strategy gaming at its best http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Fyron]

Or you lose the war from having wasted more resources on the fighters and carriers than the opponent has wasted on PDC.

Still awaiting an apology for the minor flame you made there Primitive.

[ January 23, 2004, 19:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[primitive]

Since it was a minor flame, I guess I can offer a minor apology http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But you still have not understood the point of bluffing and counterbluffing. Fighters you only pay for once, PDC you pay for when built, and then the same amount again in maintanance every 4 - 7 turns. The fighterbuilder got to be pretty stupid not to win the economic part of that game.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
"Know when to hold them" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
When your enemy have sufficient PDC ready, you hold them. You don't win many battles with them, but you win the war with economics. Strategy gaming at its best http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I will agree there is some amount of satisfaction from planning and executing a strategy and having it come off succesfully. Hitting the enemy where is ain't can be quite exhillerating. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And you might be able to get them to work marginally if you are extremely dilligent at maintaining the suprise factor and go through the micro managment neccesary to pull off the plan you have suggested here. But fighters aren't effective unless the enemy is totally unprepared for them. The plan you suggest depends too much on the enemy doing something to fall into your trap so to speak. It will work if they are unprepared, but will be a failure if they are, and isn't noticably cheaper in resources, isn't noticibly faster really, and has a lot more work involved in setting it up. The alternative, ships and no fighters, well, just works.

Maybe I am wierd, but I don't stop putting a couple of PDC on every warship just because the enemy stops, or never starts, using fighters and missles in a game. If the players you are facing do that, it would explain why you have success with fighters. I suspect it's just generally your level of skill though and not the fighters. I have faced you a few times and remember you to be a tough fight with or without them.

I'd love it if fighters could be effective longer into the game, but as far as I have seen in the stock game they aren't.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
Fighters you only pay for once, PDC you pay for when built, and then the same amount again in maintanance every 4 - 7 turns. The fighterbuilder got to be pretty stupid not to win the economic part of that game. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not really, because to have a noticible effect economically you have to have enough fighters to make him alter his designs, to use more pdc then he would otherwise. If he's just always building ships with a couple pdc either way and you don't throw enough fighters at him to overcome that, you aren't doing anything at all. And even if you did throw more fighters are him, you are in fact makeing it cheaper for him because pdc are cheaper by a significant margin then other weapons he might have otherwise chosen.

If the fighters were a viable threat then the slightly smaller amount you are spending would be a significant difference. Instead, you end up paying a little less, but get a lot less in the way of effective offensive punch. That isn't really a good tradeoff.

[ January 23, 2004, 19:38: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Paul1980au]

I would like to see a greater expansion on fighters and perhaps linking in with mines, drones and satelites ? fighter type a can pick up sats and move em around during combat ?

[Wardad]

The enemy's combat bonuses are the bane of units.

A single talisman can really help a stack of 100 SATs or a stack of WPs.
In one game I hoped to use the talisman SAT stack, but there were too many warp points. Also by time I got the talisman the enemy was well on the way to getting the warp point creator.


In fact the combat bonus system is so unbalancing, I blame it for killing interest in the game.

[ January 23, 2004, 19:52: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Not really, because to have a noticible effect economically you have to have enough fighters to make him alter his designs, to use more pdc then he would otherwise. If he's just always building ships with a couple pdc either way and you don't throw enough fighters at him to overcome that, you aren't doing anything at all. And even if you did throw more fighters are him, you are in fact makeing it cheaper for him because pdc are cheaper by a significant margin then other weapons he might have otherwise chosen.

If the fighters were a viable threat then the slightly smaller amount you are spending would be a significant difference. Instead, you end up paying a little less, but get a lot less in the way of effective offensive punch. That isn't really a good tradeoff. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is pretty much what I would have said.

Maybe I am wierd, but I don't stop putting a couple of PDC on every warship just because the enemy stops, or never starts, using fighters and missles in a game. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, you are not weird. That is the only strategically intelligent way to play. Stop using PDCs and you are just asking your enemy to stomp you with missiles and/or fighters. Not using any PDCs is always a bad idea. That is not a blanket statement anyone could argue against very successfully, unless they want to bring in weird stuff like disabling fighter and missile techs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 23, 2004, 20:02: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[primitive]

Geo (and Fyron)
Believe what you will. I have seen plenty of players overreact to the early fighters and overextend their economy, and I have seen some loose vital systems because they dismissed fighters as useless. I have also seen a few guessing just right and neutralized the threath with minimal cost.

Point is: I, as the fighter builder sit with all the cards.
If I build more fighters than you build PDC, I have a potent weapon.
If You build more PDC than I build fighters, You have to pay extra maintanance.
Either way I win http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

When it comes to late game fighters, it's true they are micromanagement hell. That is why I seldom choose to use them, but it does not mean they are useless. There are plenty of small dirty tricks that makes limited use of them very effective as decoys or weapons. But as I do not believe they are any good as the main fighting force.

[Fyron]

So you are assuming an inexperienced player against and experienced one then? Of course you can beat inexperienced players that do not know that fighters are not very powerful when you have sufficient PDCs, but you do not really need to go overboard...

And again, I will repeat that the economic impact of an extra PDC on your ships is so minor that it does not matter. I would be very surprised to see a game where this was the only determining factor in victory, or even a major one. Except, possibly, in that extremely small slice of MP games that are 1 v 1 games.

[geoschmo]

How did I get in a debate on the same side as Fyron? Somebody, change the subject. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
How did I get in a debate on the same side as Fyron? Somebody, change the subject. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Cause you have been leeching my SE4 strategies for years? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif j/k ofc

[primitive]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So you are assuming an inexperienced player against and experienced one then? Of course you can beat inexperienced players that do not know that fighters are not very powerful when you have sufficient PDCs, but you do not really need to go overboard...

And again, I will repeat that the economic impact of an extra PDC on your ships is so minor that it does not matter. I would be very surprised to see a game where this was the only determining factor in victory, or even a major one. Except, possibly, in that extremely small slice of MP games that are 1 v 1 games. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nope. Cause the other guy have to guess, experience does not matter (much). I have seen some of the most experienced and well respected players guess very very wrong.

Also, for late game with Battleships and Dreads, you are right in your statement that an extra PDC does not matter. When people are putting 3 on their destroyers and LCs and then add some extra PDC ships to their fleets, it does matter.

[Fyron]

Most MP games do not have very much war with destroyers... and even then, 3 PDCs is not a big investment over 2 PDCs on destroyers and LCs. A PDC ship or two is also still not a big factor. Especially if you do not rush for shields or armor right away, but instead concentrate on CS and ECM (as combat bonuses are far more important than shields or armor, without a lot of research invested into the shields...), so you might not even have shields or armor to use, so that space can have an extra PDC or two easily and not have it be a significant chunk of the economy. And even if you have to give up 2 armors, it only weakens your ships by 2 shots worth of unmounted DUC Vs, or one shot worth of a large mount DUC V. This can make a bit of a difference, but not much, unless your forces are otherwise identical in numbers... 3 PDC is not by far heavily invested in, or paranoid.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
Also, for late game with Battleships and Dreads, you are right in your statement that an extra PDC does not matter. When people are putting 3 on their destroyers and LCs and then add some extra PDC ships to their fleets, it does matter. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">See now you are shifting arguments on me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Primitive, would it be flaming you for me to tell you to stop pulling a Fyron? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

However, this does perhaps explain why you might have seen some games where fighters were a deciding factor. Since Koth games do tend to end during that phase of the game. But I'd still call that the early game. It's just that Koth games tend to end in the early game.

Geoschmo

[primitive]

I did not do any namedropping, but when you mention it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
But I've seen much much worse Geo, I truly have.
And lets call it a minor flame. I can live with it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I agree most KOTH games can be defined as "early game", but even the largest games goes through an "early game" phase. Unless you get into diplomatic trouble, getting ahead of the pack can be quite rewarding.

Allthough I seldom use fighter in mid/late game due to the micromanagement, I still believe they are effective. In fact I'm plan to rely quite heavily on them in a largish game right now where my available space is not quite at the level I want/need. I'll keep you posted on the results http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
(To those in games with me: Remember, I might be bluffing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Fyron:
You seems to know a whole lot about the best strategies for these small games without playing in them yourself. Maybe it's time for you to put your money where your mouth is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Fyron]

Again, I am forced to defer to Geo's post, which echos previous statements I have made alluding to 1 v 1 games primarily being early game situations... I certainly have had enough experience in early game situations to be able to theorize about various strategies and such. I have played in several 1 v 1 games anyways.

1 v 1 games remove the elements of playing SE4 in multiplayer that are the most fun to me... just one opponent turns it into a purely competitive match, which is little fun to me. This is why I am not in KOTH.

[ January 23, 2004, 22:31: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Wardad]

For those Shrapnel Fanatics:

http://www.whowantsabalti.co.uk/pics/geek-leak.jpg

[narf poit chez BOOM]

can't see the pic.

[Fyron]

So hit quote on his post, get the URL and put it in the address bar. The pic loads for me.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

works now.

[tesco samoa]

geo... I once played what I call a perfect game against you using fighters and carriers... I did not lose a single ship or planet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


WP are good... They can slow down some one... Esp... with the mounts...

[oogs]

i'm re-using this thread for another question along the lines of the original one...


i'm gearing up for a major... uhhh... cleansing of the universe. I have 6 fleets that can operate independantly for indefinite periods of time (they have repair & resupply capabilities), each with 10 dreadnaughts. I honestly do not expect the AI to pose *too* much of a challenge... and even then i can rebuild the whole fleet in under 10 turns.
Anyways, I want to include carriers (just for fun). But I cannot seem to decide between a designing a carrier that can launch 30 fighters each combat turn (and hold 168 heavy fighters) or a carrier than can launch 20/turn (and hold 302 heavy fighters).

Which of the two would seem better, and why? I have some ideas of my own, but they are why I can't choose either option - i don't see a clear advantage in either design.

Oh, and the simulations don't seem to help much... I haven't engaged the enemy in a while, and my intelligence can't steal their ship plans. I sort of closed all but 2 wormholes leading into my territory, and these are guarded by my older carriers and fleets.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
geo... I once played what I call a perfect game against you using fighters and carriers... I did not lose a single ship or planet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Now that's a damn lie! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I have lost many games, but I don't recall ever being beaten by anyone without at least extracting some damage in return. Either way, I still maintain it's not becuase you used fighters. If it's the one I think you are talking about I was pretty much beat up from my war with another player. You just stepped in at an opportune time. Not to mention I was using fighters myself in that game. And I don't recall you using them all that much. Are you sure you don't have the facts backwards and are actually proving my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

if you can't see a difference, pick one and go with it.

[tesco samoa]

no it was a koth game... I went all fighters against your ships and intel attacks... I did not lose a single ship or planet... I remember it quite well... Took like 50 turns or something. around a year ago.. The only reason why I remember is because... It was the perfect game...

[oogs]

*sighs* i think we should lock tesco and geo in a carrier's fighter-bay and let them go at it.

[primitive]

Originally posted by oogs:
..... But I cannot seem to decide between a designing a carrier that can launch 30 fighters each combat turn (and hold 168 heavy fighters) or a carrier than can launch 20/turn (and hold 302 heavy fighters).

Which of the two would seem better, and why? I have some ideas of my own, but they are why I can't choose either option - i don't see a clear advantage in either design.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It really doesn't matter, both are valid designs.

The one thing you have to keep in mind (for strategic combat) though is to include direct fire weapon so your carrier dont run to the corner. There is nothing sillier than to have your fighters arrive at the frontline in small batches that are easy meat for the PDC.

[capnq]

I would lean toward 30/168. That gets all the fighters in action in 6 turns, where the other would take 16.

Also, 30/168 finishes with a group of 18 fighters, but 20/302 ends with a measly 2.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
no it was a koth game... I went all fighters against your ships and intel attacks... I did not lose a single ship or planet... I remember it quite well... Took like 50 turns or something. around a year ago.. The only reason why I remember is because... It was the perfect game... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah yes. I must have blocked it out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But I still maintain fighters weren't all that important. In my somewhat fuzzy recolection you pretty much out did me in every area. You could have easily wiped me out with escorts in equivalent numbers to what you were able to throw at me.