SE4 Strategy - An Art or a Science?

[Askan Nightbringer]

Hi all,

I've just completed my 7th multiplayer game (Maelstrom..been running since mid Last year).
I've witnessed hundreds of combats and puzzled over the setup of 50 or so human empires.

Now my quesiton - "Is the strategy to this game an art or a science?"

By art I mean does it rely on player skill, the ability to know when and where to attack and when to retreat, etc, etc.

By science I mean is it purely empire setup and research goals. Then build the correct fleet makeup and go whack.

Now I tend to believe its pretty much a science. Empire setups by experienced players are converging to the one model, ship designs are starting to all look the same. There might be some variation depending on personal taste and what was found in ruins but I'm convinced there is a model for success and if one player is using it and you are not then your in big trouble.

Of course I'm really only talking about strategies vs humans. Versus the AI you can pretty much do anything you want http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Cheers,
Askan

[Spoo]

I'd say it depends on if you're playing to see who conquers all first (science) or if you play a more diplomatic/roleplaying game (art).

[ 24 April 2002: Message edited by: Spoo ]</p>

[Gandalph]

I believe that is more important (and more fun) to mix up your strategies. That way neither human or AI can take advantage of your weaknesses without you knowing a comeback strategy. That is to say that all strategies do have a weakness. IMHO

[Askan Nightbringer]

Interesting.
I wouldn't agree that all strategies have a weakness thou.

[Phoenix-D]

Name one and we'll see.

And please let it not be anything spawned by GUTB. Those are from the Wile E Coyte school of strategy, i.e. they don't need any extra help in taking themselves apart.

Phoenix-D

[dogscoff]

I agree with Askan in that if you are prepared to really crunch the numbers, you will find that certain gameplay models are clearly superior.

It doesn't matter though, because every mod, every patch and every scenario shifts the game balance and so the "ideal model" has to be rediscovered.

[Askan Nightbringer]

OK...I'm going to put my combat simulator where my mouth is.

Although I do concede that mods make the ideal model harder to obtain, and some modders attention to this area (I'm thinking the brilliant proportions mod) show that others are aware of the "problem".

The combat engine is heavily weighted towards offensive/defensive bonuses

Now any conquest strategy, whether long term or short term has to take advantage of this simple fact.

To demonstrate the weight try this.
Design a light cruisers with 6 large mount DUC 1's. Now design another one exactly the same with combat sensors 1 and ECM 1. Simulate a combat between these 2 designs, noting the obvious that the ship with the sensors wins most of the time.
Increase the combat to 10 ships a side, noting now the the ships with the sensors with all the time with max losses of 3.

That is the advantage a berserker culture with 15% aggresiveness and 10% defensiveness has against a race with no bonuses in that department.

Not overwhelming but a start.
Now assume we're playing some 2k empire setup. With this its quite reasonable to build a race that is berserker with a 20% aggresiveness and a 20% defensiveness. To facilitate this we may take penalties in cunning (even with non-existant cunning its still quite easy to block intel coz defence is much easier than attack), strength and repair.

The next important bit is your research strategy. Most big time warring starts after turn 30 or so. Your simply aiming to get your to hit and defense bonus as high as possible by that time.
To do this go for
1. Sensors and ECM (obvious)
2. Steath and scattering armour (level 3 in both gives you 30% defence).
3. Training facilities. A fully trained ship in a fully trained fleet is +40 attack and +40 defence. Now this is massive. This is nothing but devastating to the unprepared player.

The other key points are mines and point defence. Mines ensure a big war won't break out too soon (and always build explosive warheads II so scattering armour won't bust your field).
Point defence to negate any missile strategy (if the fact that all missiles seem to target the lead ship didn't already).

Don't worry to much about the fighter..the fact they don't get racial (i believe) or experience bonuses and to get sensors or ecm you have to research levels in fighter means even they'll have hard times hitting your ships.

Shake and bake and prepare to serve nothing but cold fury. Soon you too will be getting those 100 ships dead to loss of your one results that we all know and love.

Oh...this strategy does have a counter. When the enemy is adopting the same one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Cheers,
Askan

[Gryphin]

It comes down to:
Science:
Concentration of Effort
Economy of Force
Mobility
Techonolog
Art:
Designing the Ships
Reading your opponent
Taking / Making Calculated Risks
Correctly Employing the Sciences, (that is the hard part).
There are several examples in recent history of technology and training that are reflectect in the numbers you point out.
I once saw a book on "numbers and warfare". I don't remember the title. I'll try to find it and post it here. Anybody know of it?

[Jmenschenfresser]

You listed a quite a lot askan. Especially given the fact that you stated real combat starts by turn 30.

I agree that the SE4 model lends itself to one ideal ship type which dominates over the others, but if combat starts around turn 30, no one can possibly research everything you mentioned before one's empire comes under attack.

Harken back to our game where I got my *** handed to me because I failed to develop and implement two things in time...mines and some kind of sensor to pick up ships with stealth armor. You were able to slip by and glass my home worlds.

In all actuality, when you did attack, I had already developed mines, and was in the process of building mine layers and mines. As far as the sensors go, when I got hit, they were the next thing in queue. Little too late though.

However, at the same time, I had spent much more time researching offensive tech, ship construction, ecm, combat sensors, weapons, etc. I am pretty sure I had slightly better fleets and a larger economic base.

I guess my whole point is...if combat starts by turn 30 on average, it's not the fact that there is an ideal game plan that matters, it's what you research and implement first which can win or lose the game.

So the answer is....

Intuition...

If you get out of the first 100 turns in a strong position, then it becomes a science.

[Master Belisarius]

I think that's 90% science and 10% art.

But think that some people learn fast (usually playing against a more experienced player), and other people, never will learn how to play although could play a lot of SE4 games...

In SE3 times, I have taught (yes, literary I have taught!), about my tactics and strategies near of 12 players. I could be a bad professor (admit), but only 2 or 3 became really good players.

Then, although I think that play SE4 is a science, also I believe that not everybody learn at the same speed. In my view, it makes the difference.

[PirateRob]

One thing you could try is modding the 'settings.txt' file and reduce the maximum aggressive and defensive trait settings. you could also put the threshold level real low so that the cost goes up drasticaly if you go for a high bonus in those areas. I think this will reduce the importance of those combat bonuses based on race. you will then see some more variety in race design perhaps?

Rob

[witherton]

Wow, I'm actually posting on this forum.

I'm a non-technical player. I've never tried tactical combat, used the simulator, replayed combat or other techy things. I don't play solo games against the AI. Yet I manage to win games on PBW. So I bring a slightly different perspective than Askan. I don't know how to separate art from science but here are some thoughts on successful play.

First, I am absolutely sure Askan knows what he is talking about. I played with him before and you don't want him as an enemy. But I think there are some other considerations.

1. Cash flow. Having fleets depends on cash flow. To get it you need to expand fast and make efficient use of what you have. There are known techniques for rapid expansion.

2. Efficiency. Changes to maintenance ability dramatically alter the size fleet you can maintain for a given cash flow. Empire points put into maintenance pay off. Points put into mineral production are also really worthwhile.

3. Diplomacy. Alliances and manipulation of enemies can make a real difference. Get on the same side with Askan http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Get your enemies fighting each other. Here is an example from a recent game: I was #1 empire and #2 and #3 were very close in score. I thought #2 and #3 were going to gang up on me. So I traded planets for ships with #3 and used those ships as part of a fleet attacking #2. #2 thought #3 was in alliance with me and preemptively attacked #3. They fought a long battle while I expanded and cemented my position. I won.

4. Trade. Trade stuff. Don't worry too much about helping another empire as long as you help yourself.

5. Tactics. Figure out a plan to conquer the galaxy--the plan will constantly change but have a plan. Fight wars that you can win. Attack with overwhelming strength. Negotiate and stall when you are weak or out of position. Defend your gains. Guard the choke points. All the usual plus watch out for SEIV stuff like cloaking and stellar manipulation (more on this later).

6. Talismans. (dictionary says that is the plural). I recently found religion. It isn't necessary but never missing from maximum range is really nice. Of course, you probably reduce aggressiveness to pay for religion (isn't that fitting?) so you are vulnerable while researching. Be really nice for awhile.

7. Construction. So you've expanded to 100 planets, got bazillions in cash flow, a great maintenance ability and here comes Askan with his fleet. Quick you need a fleet of your own. But your construction ability is terrible and you haven't put space yards on every planet nor built construction bases and gosh darn it you're dead before you can build that super fleet. Balance in all things.

8. Game Specifications. This time you have your 100 planets, your maintenance, your space yards, your construction and are all ready to produce that devastating 1000 ship fleet. And just when you go to launch number 201, you realize there is a 200 ship limit in this game. And your much smaller neighbor with his 200 optimized religio-organic ships wipes you out. Darn. Things like ship and unit limits, is surrender allowed, will there be AI, size and type of galaxy etc. influence tactics.

9. Stellar manipulation. You've got that back door guarded and are moving your fleet to the front when your opponent opens wormholes in your best systems and blows their stars up. Ooops. Worm hole opening and closing can play havoc with plans and tactics. So get the tech first or win the war before your opponent can get it.

I guess what I am saying is that there is a lot of complexity in the game and, at least for a non-techy fellow like me, no set formula for success.

[geoschmo]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
In SE3 times, I have taught (yes, literary I have taught!), about my tactics and strategies near of 12 players. I could be a bad professor (admit), but only 2 or 3 became really good players.<hr></blockquote>

But Master B, is this not evidence that sucess is more of an art than a science? Of course perhaps it is one more difference between SEIII and SEIV. (I am sure I could find many people that would agree with that statement no?)

I still believe that sucess is much more art than most people relize. A bad player can become adequate through science or art. But it takes both to become truely great.

I have played Askan and Master B, and have beat neither. I understand the science of why I lose. I can perform the calculations, and follow the steps. But I still lose, badly. But I do not consider myself in their league when it comes to the art of war.

I think the true measure of the talent of the artist may be that he is unaware of how talented he is.

Geoschmo

[ 24 April 2002: Message edited by: geoschmo ]</p>

[rdouglass]

In SE or in real life, technolgy almost always wins. Period.

(notice I said almost.....)

[Gryphin]

The name of the book I mentioned was:
"Numbers, Predictions and War"
It gets a lot of hits at Google.com

rdouglass,
"In SE or in real life, technolgy almost always wins. Period."
Your key word is, "Almost". For Example the highly trained and technology superior German Army of WWII vs the untrained masses of equipment of the Russian army. It was however a Phyric Vitory if you look at the kill ratio.

In the case of the Germans, I believe, they failed in the "Art of War".

"There is an exception to every rule. Including that one"

[geoschmo]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rdouglass:
In SE or in real life, technolgy almost always wins. Period.

(notice I said almost.....)<hr></blockquote>No disagreement here. I am not trying to say that you can somehow develop a magical fairy dance that will allow your low tech escorts to overcome their high-tech bettleships. But I am simply saying that this is not a weakness of the game.

The fact that you have maximize your ability to hit your opponents and minimize your opponents ability to hit you is completely normal and expected for a combat simulation game, because it's true of real life combat. Where I disagree is with the belief that this somehow controls your choices in the game setup and forces everybody into some vanilla flavored empire. There is plenty of variety in how you get there. The trip is the thing, not the destination.

Since experinece, ecm, and combat sensors are the heaviest inluence on these factors, and they are all achieveble by any player given time, they aren't race specific.

The racial characteristics have an influence, but proporionally less of one. So that given equal amounts of tech controlled to hit bonuses, you can overcome a racial controlled to hit deficit though superior numbers, or in some cases superior tactics.

The science is the way to not lose. But to win, you must have the art. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[PvK]

Hmm, while I definitely know what you mean about maximizing combat bonuses being extremely important, I don't think this is the most important thing. It can dominate tactical direct-fire combat, but that's not nearly the only effective strategy. It does tend to dominate the late-game, when techs are running low. And yes, this is something I tried to counter in all sorts of ways in Proportions mod, from tuning down all to-hit mods, to adding many new ones and presenting a lot of different ship design and research options that weren't as useful in the standard game.

One issue is that in the late game, unless you're playing a mod or have high research costs, everyone has the opportunity to get the best parts of the whole tech tree.

However, even with the highest techs, I still don't think there is really one best design. Talismans are really powerful, though. But once you see your opponents' designs, you can probably find a design that can out-perform that design in some way, that isn't exactly the same as it. Go cheap, go expensive, go larger, go smaller, go faster, build more defense, go longer or shorter range, etc.

Also, in addition to designing the most efficient combat ships, there are a number of other tactics involving production, construction, maintenance, trade, intel, units, stellar manipulation, bases, deception, expansion, etc. Not all of them can be done at once, and are more or less useful in different situations.

Perhaps most important, though, is diplomacy. In a game with more than two human players, diplomacy can be the most important skill.

In the Universe Cup, I played two different types of empire. One geared for combat performance, and another weak in combat aptitude but impressive in other things (fast expansion). The two combat performance empires met similar opponents and had very hard fights, while the two combat deficient empires swept the map like Atilla and won before the enemies had a chance to get started.

Anyway, I think SE4 gameplay involves both art and science, as it were. Both aspects are important.

PvK

[Phoenix-D]

Thing is, even aggressiveness and defensiveness bonuses have their limits. Defensiveness won't help you if your opponent comes charging in with Organic Armor III ramming ships! Nor against a talisman. It's a big advantage, but not insurmountable. If you can put enough ships into space (by way of increased happyness and shipyard production) that advantage can be negated. Far side Warp-point defenses are also useful in that regard, since it's much easier to hit at close range.

Beserkers gives you power, but you pay for it. -5 production. -5 research. -5 intel. -5 trade. -2 shipyard (ow).

Research is important; always will be. And since PD is so extremely accurate and powerful in the umodded game, you need combat sensors. That's a given.

Ditto for agressiveness/defensiveness. Useful and probably a bit overpowered for the cost, but not essential.

Scenerio: down to two empires now, both reasonably high tech. You've dumped large amounts of points into Defensiveness, and mount stealth/scattering/ECM. Your opponent has the Religious Talisman. Poof, no advantage.

Scenerio: All the tech is equal, your ships have a to-hit advantage because you went for defensiveness. Your opponent counters by researching Wave Motion Guns (they get a + to hit). You could do the same, but you're already hitting him reliably anyway..

Phoenix-D

[geoschmo]

Ok, my only comment to this is that you pretty much are saying the way to win this game every time is to hit the other guy more than he hits you.

"Well, Duh!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

This is totally realistic and perfectly in line with what we have witnessed in modern warfare. Now a case could be made that it SE4 combat to hit pluses and minus are a bit to strong, but since everybody knows that going in, what's the problem?

Since everybody knows that part of it, it's their responsibility to plan accordingly. With equal levels of sensor tech and experience (science) then victory will go to the player than can accomplish putting more of his ships where the other guys aren't (art). While there may be only one real way to do the first, there are certainly a myriad of ways to accomplish the second.

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Geo

[TerranC]

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

-Chapter Three: Attack by Strategem
Sun Tzu, Art of War.

Art. Definitely.

[oleg]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gryphin:
The name of the book I mentioned was:
"Numbers, Predictions and War"
It gets a lot of hits at Google.com

rdouglass,
"In SE or in real life, technolgy almost always wins. Period."
Your key word is, "Almost". For Example the highly trained and technology superior German Army of WWII vs the untrained masses of equipment of the Russian army. It was however a Phyric Vitory if you look at the kill ratio.

In the case of the Germans, I believe, they failed in the "Art of War".

"There is an exception to every rule. Including that one"<hr></blockquote>

This is enough. I know first-handly how arrogant is western public (consequence of Cold war propaganda) about WWII. But for God sake, how can anyone talk about WWII without any knowledge of T-34, IL-2, KV-1, Katusha, Yak-1/3/7/9, etc. ?

PS. Well, I should concur about "highly trained" note. The 37-38 purge deprived Red Army of 2/3 of command personnel. Nobody knows fo sure, but it is highly likely that was the major reason for disastrous 41 compain. Whatever the modern historians say, Hitler was far from being stupid when he planned 41 invasion of Soviet Union. Barbarossa was a very clever plan, it just did nor work. 40-41 were the lowest point of Red Army readiness. The mass production of T-34 started in January of 41. One year delay and Wermacht (spl, sorry) would not advance farther then Brest.

[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]

[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]

[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]</p>

[Taz-in-Space]

oleg, I know that T34 & KV1 were tanks
and believe IL-2 and Yak 1-9 were planes.
but you have me on Katusha!

[oleg]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Taz-in-Space:
oleg, I know that T34 & KV1 were tanks
and believe IL-2 and Yak 1-9 were planes.
but you have me on Katusha!<hr></blockquote>

For IL-2 check out these links (I'm not Oleg who programed the game, good luck to him )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/reviews/newsid_1698000/1698123.stm
http://www.il2sturmovik.com/

"Katusha" is a mobile short-range rocket launcher. Even though designed in WWII, it has a relevance to modern times:
http://www.iris.org.il/katyusha.htm

[Mudshark]

some very good Posts to this forum, if no one minds, I will add to the Stratagy&tactic website, it would be a shame for this forum to be lost.

[Mudshark]

Ther is a very good article about why Nazi Germany lost the war in www.wargamer.com (http://www.wargamer.com) . It had more to do with logistics than anything else. Very good read. And some of it could be used in SEIV.

[Lupusman]

Having a ally that can't fight worth crap is also a downer. One has to choose friends wisely.

(cough, cough, Italians)

[Mudshark]

Good point. consider the French in WWII, of for that matter Italy during this time frame. In terms of SEIV they would have been lost except for a huge economic base, that was at least a year in gearing up, i would love for a WWII bases scenerio, perhaps in SEV.

[oleg]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mudshark:
Ther is a very good article about why Nazi Germany lost the war in www.wargamer.com (http://www.wargamer.com) . It had more to do with logistics than anything else. Very good read. And some of it could be used in SEIV.<hr></blockquote>

Can you please give a direct link ? wargamer.com is a vast site, I got lost

[Gryphin]

Oleg, you are correct. None the less, it points to a failure in "Art" not "Science".
I did not question the intellect of anyone. I pointed out the failed execution of the science.

I know quite a bit about T34-76's, T34-85's, KV-I and II's. etc. A lot of surplus WWII equipment was used in the 50's in Korea and the Mid East. Stalin's Organs were used within the Last decade in the Mid East.

I may have a slanted view of world history, but not of the equipment, strategy, and tactics that were used.

Different example: The French had superior technology than the Germans. Gun for Gun, Tank for Tank, the equipment was 10 to 15 percent better than the German equipment. They lost when the used it as infantry support. To me that is "Art". They used it wrong. The rest is History.
Yes, I have over simplyfied and nor to I pretend to be an expert. These are just observations I have made and conclusions I have drawn.

[oleg]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gryphin:

Different example: The French had superior technology than the Germans. Gun for Gun, Tank for Tank, the equipment was 10 to 15 percent better than the German equipment. They lost when the used it as infantry support. To me that is "Art". They used it wrong. The rest is History.
Yes, I have over simplyfied and nor to I pretend to be an expert. These are just observations I have made and conclusions I have drawn.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, S-35 and and S-36 were quite formidable tankc, in par or even bettrer then T-III. However, I am not aware of mass-produced French aircraft close to Me-109. And even if they are, the result wold be like this :

Pierre, a brave French fighter pilot, takes his girlfriend, Marie, out
for a pleasant little picnic by the River Seine.
It's a beautiful day and love is in the air.

Marie leans over to Pierre and says, "Pierre, kiss me!"

Pierre grabs a bottle of Merlot and splashes it on Marie's lips.
"What are you doing, Pierre?" says the startled Marie.
"I am Pierre, the fighter pilot! When I have red meat, I have red wine!"
She smiles and they start kissing.

Things began to heat up a little and Marie says, "Pierre, kiss me lower."

Our hero tears her blouse open, grabs a bottle of Chardonnay and pours it on her breasts.

"Pierre! What are you doing now?" asks the bewildered Marie.
"I am Pierre, the fighter pilot! When I have white meat, I have white wine!"

She giggles and they resume their passionate interlude,
and things really steam up.

Marie leans close to his ear and whispers, "Pierre, kiss me much lower!"

Pierre rips off her underwear, grabs a bottle of Cognac and pours it in her lap.

He then strikes a match and lights the cognac on fire.
Marie shrieks and dives into the River Seine. Standing waist deep,
Marie throws her arms into the air and screams furiously,
"PIERRE, WHAT IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?"

Our 'hero' stands and says defiantly, "I am Pierre, the fighter pilot!
If I go down, I go down in flames!"

[mac5732]

Oleg, ROFL, most excellent

just some ideas mac

[PDF]

About French and Soviet equipment in WWII (that I do know quite well), I strongly disagree that they had "technological" advantages over German ones.
French and Soviet tanks had in fact better DESIGNS (more armor generally) and LOWER tech : guns were quite inferior in accuracy, optics were more crude, turrets were cramped, they had no radios (so the tank commander had to operate the gun AND read signals from the platoon leader http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif !).
Adding to that poor training and tactics they generally lost in 40-41 ... French lost their war, Russia was able to stand due to large territory, industrial base, Western help and sheer will to not give up (and a quite dictatorial government that wasn't scared by sending millions to die...).

If you want an example of losing "hi tech" country in a war, rather take Vietnam...

[Growltigga]

or the American intervention in Mogadishu, Somalia? that is a classic example of how a high tech militaristic nation can get ahem...... soundly thrashed by its less than exemplary foes

[geoschmo]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Growltigga:
or the American intervention in Mogadishu, Somalia? that is a classic example of how a high tech militaristic nation can get ahem...... soundly thrashed by its less than exemplary foes<hr></blockquote>Soundly thrashed? The Somalian Campaign was a political failure, not a military one. The battle depicted in "Black Hawk Down" was at the time the largest number of US casualties in combat since Vietnam, and the main objective to capture the warlord failed, but at the end of the day as many as ten Somalis were dead for every one US soldier. Not exactly a "thrashing".

Another historical example of a technologically weaker foe defeating a stronger one would also be the colonies defeating the British Army in the American Revolutionary War.

Geo

[Gryphin]

oleg,
Thank you. I now have a Fresh / French joke to email around the world. I also have to once again explain to the woman in the cube next to me why I'm laughing so hard.

PDF: I humbly concede. Very clearly my sources were biased. I thank you for the correction

[Loser]

To Do list:

1. Get Religion.

2. Develop Magical Fairie Dance

3. Ditch Italy, France (sorry kids)

4. Locate Afganistan, Vietnam, avoid them

5. Stop blaming Hitler for... certain specific inadequcies of the Reich

6. Research Mean Coffee (a caffeinated beverage so advanced, it possesses an actual capacity for malice... world domination is sure to follow)

[mac5732]

In regards to supposedly inferiors beathing up on supposedly tech advanced counties, how about the following

British vs Zulu's (Isawanda)
Boer Wars
how about the Crusades, supposedly the Europeans were supposedly higher tech better armor, better stand up units, knights, etc,

just some ideas mac

[Krsqk]

Well, the Boer wars and the Crusades comes down to art, too. Tactics and mobility, with guerilla-like warfare, served to defeat technologically more advanced enemies. Just goes to show that you can win battles with almost anything. And if you can win enough battles, you can probably win a war.

[Master Belisarius]

Hey Geo, thanks for the kind words but think I'm only a good SE4 player.

Sorry if I come back to the original theme of this topic, right?
I will write some advice, but this don't want to be an exhaustive list.

First want to talk about few generic aspects of the SE4's science. Because are generic advice, I know that somebody could say: "But I did what you're saying, and anyway my *** was kicked!" "Or I did the opposite and had success!"
But SE4 is so rich, and the game settings so many, that would be hard to say an advice that could fit to all the possibilities. Also, some guys could differ a lot of my approach, and I respect that because think that like in the life, in SE4 does not exist the absolute "truth" (for this I like this game!).

1) In small galaxies, is not good pick racial traits like Organics, Temporal, Religious, etc. Usually is very difficult research enough to get some true advantage from them. In the other hand, think that the Advanced Storage is one of the more important.

2) I agree with the people who said that the bonuses to fire or elude a shot (Sensors / ECM / Aggressivenes / Defenssiveness /Training / Stealth+Scattering armors, etc), are the more important thing in every game, except: If you're fighting against a Religious empire inside a medium or large galaxy (then, if you don't kill them fast, the defenssiveness/ECM will be worthless), or playing high tech games against them.

The example about a race Raming your ships with Organic Armors III, well, is a good idea, but all the test that I did (for the Aquilaeian), had not good results: first you need a long time to research Organic Armor III, and second, these ships became near to useless, if the other empire use Ionic Dispersers (a very popular weapon and easy to research, must say). Also, think that is only an improved Version of a Kamikaze ship (after Ram with success 1 or 2 ships the ship usually die), and don't know anybody (including Ais and humans), that used Kamikaze ships with success. I can admit that at some point could be useful, (to surprise your enemy, for example), but not good to use as norm.

3) Because most the people use the PPB as main weapon, research shields at the start usually is not a good idea.

4) In the games that have played, usually the empires focused to combat bonuses have more success than the empires focused to build.
Sure, after amass a very big difference, the building empire could crush the other: but to do this you need time. Time to grow or time to research better sensors than your opponent or train your fleets, for example. But at the other hand, the other empire can do the same... then, although you could have massive fleets, sometimes is not easy keep your ships competitive.

Never I'm scared to know that my enemy have a lot more ships than me, of if I'm down in the numbers. I'm scared if know that my ships can't fight with success against them and he have enough minesweepers to clean my mines...

5) The missiles are only good for the very few turns. After your opponent can research PDC III, they are useless. A handful of LC ships with PDC can keep you safe of lots of missiles/fighters. I know that at some cases your PDC can be surpassed, but honestly I never had problems with the guys that like to play with fighters/missiles.

6) The best weapons in low tech games are: DUC, PPB, Shield Depleters, Ionic Dispersers. If later you can research other weapons (APP, WMG, etc), ok, but with these you have enough fun for awhile.

The Mines are a very good defensive weapon in the early game too: will buy time for you, and keep safe your planets from attacks of cloaked ships.

For players with Organics, Temporal, etc, sure the best option is research the related weapons with your racial traits, but you will need some time (sometimes a crucial time), to research it. For this reason, usually I only pick this kind of Racial Traits, in games with a large galaxy.

7) Don't send fleets with only attack ships into the Enemy Territory. The resupply ships, mine-sweepers, repair ships, Troop Transports, etc, are a vital element that need to be included to assure the success.

About the Art aspects, well, are more intangible than the science advices... for this reason are Art! And more hard to apply!
Still I think that a SE4 game is a lot more science than Art, but think that the small 10% can decide the battle when both opponents have similar knowledge about the science.

1) All the time check everything. Your situation, your enemies, the map, your ships vs enemy ships, the more important systems.

2) Keep one eye over your resources.

3) Have a research plan, but change it depending how the things are going on (for example, after see the strategies of your enemy).

4) Try to predict your enemy's actions.

5) The best defense is a good attack.

6) Try to surprise your enemy. Try to be always one step ahead him.

7) Determine your weakness and strong sides. Try to minimize your weakness and take advantage of your strong aspects.

8) Determine the weakness of your enemy and their strong sides. Try to maximize their weakness and minimize the efects of their strong sides.

Here an example of the Last 3 advices: against an enemy that had best sensors and aggressiveness / defensiveness than me, but their ships had not shields (because I had PPB), I surprised him with lots of cheap boarding ships (only FG), and it decided the crucial battle to my side.

9) Try to exploit an advantage at max. For example, if you have defeated the main fleet of your enemy, then if you can, go for the big targets (homeworlds, for example). Don't lose your time killing alone ships or pointless colonies.

10) Like other said here, in games with lot of human players, the political skills are a very important thing.
Usually is good be nice with the strong and rude with the weak... but sometimes is a best idea join forces with the weak against the strong... This is a tipical question of Art!
Exchange technologies/Populaiton if it's allowed (sadly, those games have started to be a bit boring to me: find an ally and exchange Colonizers, for example, is not funny to me).
Keep one eye over your "allies". Check where are their fleets and with who they have treaties. Sometimes you don't know from where will receive the shot!
Try to don't fight with everybody at the same time. Sometimes is good make concesions to survive.

Well these are some of my opinions... and as I said before, know that have not the complete "truth", and that is not a complete list, but maybe could help someone.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Krsqk:
Well, the Boer wars and the Crusades comes down to art, too. Tactics and mobility, with guerilla-like warfare, served to defeat technologically more advanced enemies. Just goes to show that you can win battles with almost anything. And if you can win enough battles, you can probably win a war.<hr></blockquote>
The Boer's had comparable equipment to the British. In fact, some of their artillery was technically superior. The British had numbers though.

[Wardad]

I had heard some where that the French tanks were mechanically unreliable. Most likely there also were not enough field repair supplies or trained mechanics. The logistics would definitely be against quiclky bringing a group of these monsters together. Also the French tanks were more vulnerable to German Air power than the German tanks.

The Germans success was based on the Combined Arms doctrine. This advantage in the Art/Science of war would be short lived, due to imitation.

[TerranC]

The reason that America lost in Vietnam was it's pride; still stocked up on their reputation to be a force to be reckoned with, the Americans, in a Vendetta, just shot down into the bushes of Vietnam, while the natives knew what was going on.

The reason that America lost in Mogadishu was it was not a setting they trained in; In an urban setting, the Militia used civilians as human shields, and laid traps in a confusing unplanned Urban landscape. People just lived there, so there wasn't a Main avenue or a specific Landmark. A few houses there, a few temples here and many, many traps and fortifications for the militia. (Now the pentagon is developing Sound weapons and advanced stink bombs to fight urban settings with minimal loss of life and training in an urban landscape.)

The reason America won World War was that the nation became focused on a single goal to drive back the Japanese and the Germans.

Three reasons to still say that it is all Art http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[thorfrog]

I totally disagree with you about the Vietnam War. Pride isn't what beat the US. THe US beat the US. This was a Limited war. The US entered the fight half-hearted. We were picking up the pieces from yet another French mistake. The Last thing the US wanted to do was bring Russia and China into the conflict. Something called the "cold war". So the officers in the field had their hands tied when it came to choosing targets because of politics. Not to mention the American people were not in favor of this war. The US was having a civil upheval. We also had politicians directing and changing the strategic focus of this war constantly. Bottom line, if the US wanted to defeat the Viet Cong we could. Just ask the people of Afganistan, Iraq, & Panama. Ok, 5 men with a pellet gun could beat Panama. When we are fully commited we are a juggernaught. Not to mention a little help from our Allies. Even though I question their loyalty at times. Of course there are exceptions: England, Canada, Germany, Austrialia, several former Russian states, ect.

[Mephisto]

The US "conquered" (I know it didn't) Vietnam, but it didn't conquered the heart of enough people to stay there. You cannot stay in a country an unlimited time if you do not have the people of that country follow you on their own will.

[Wardad]

Our biggest mistake was giving Vietnam back to the French, to restore French pride, after WWII.
We should have gave back to the Vietnamese in the first place.

[thorfrog]

Good point.

[Lisif Deoral]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lupusman:
Having a ally that can't fight worth crap is also a downer. One has to choose friends wisely.

(cough, cough, Italians)<hr></blockquote>

Well, we did choose wisely! Or at least, the government thought so - I suppose Franco was even wiser. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Anyway, to return to SEIV I think the game penalizes too much a technologycally backward empire.
Returning to an historical example, the Italian navy in WWII managed to get some surprising results without radars, carriers, decent air support and some other significant stuff - extremely bad research strategies, let's say... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif (it's a trademark of the italian armies/navies throughout the centuries... we still employ F-104s, for example.)

Anyway, there have been many historical cases in which "art" proved to be much more important than "science" (or at least, "tech & production").
The battle of Agincourt is a good example, although a bit extreme.

My greatest complaint about SEIV are the points which can be safely obtained from such fields as repair and environmental resistance.

[Edit: I should not attempt to write meaningful phrases in a foreign language after 11 PM... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif ]

[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: Lisif Deoral ]</p>

[Mudshark]

Here is the article Oleg;
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/german_myth_main.asp

[dumbluck]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PDF:

If you want an example of losing "hi tech" country in a war, rather take Vietnam...<hr></blockquote>

Or the Russian Version: Afganistan. Not that I can spell it this late at night....

[Cyrien]

Here's my idea for how you would mimic Vietnam in SE4. Now work with me here.

Have your Empire (the US) have 12 or so systems well developed with good economy, military, etc. Stronger than all the other nations with stellar manip tech and cloaks on ships to safely blow up any planet (Nukes on ICBM and Nuke Subs) you want because no one has mines or scanners. Your race has the peaceful trait. They don't like war.

Now you have another Empire (the USSR) that is just as big maybe not as good economically and militarily but they also have stellar manip tech and cloaks blah blah. Their race has the neutral or warlike trait. Not really important for this demonstration.

These two Empires don't like each other (murderous) and engage in intel ops against each other all the time with lots of cloak capable star destroyer ships all over the place enough to blow up every enemy planet, but if you do that then next turn the other guy uses their cloaked planet buster ships on you just before maintenance takes em all out.

Now there are lots of other 2 or 3 or 1 star Empires. One of the 2 or 3 (France) star ones occupies a 1 star one
(Vietnam) in a subjugation treaty. The subjugated ones don't like that and break the treaty. The 2 or 3 star guy goes in and tries to beat em. The ships of Mr. 1 star are simpler and not as good. But their people don't mind the fight and their system is in a nebulae. They have temporal scanners (which can see in nebulae systems). The 2 or 3 star empire gets kicked out cause they do some incredibly stupid stuff tactically, strategically, etc.

Now this 1 Star Empire is split into two parts. Half the planets for these half them. They get into a fight and all that and one of the fighters believes in Mr. EVIL 12 system (USSR) doctrine and is all close and budy budy with them. So Mr. Other 12 system comes in and takes on the other half as their budy budy cause they don't want Mr 1 star to start following around Mr EVIL 12 star and maybe be on their side if war does start. Also they can't trade and stuff (in theory) with Mr. 1 star if he goes over to Mr. EVIL 12 star.

So now Mr. Big 12 star peaceful gets into this war. Now this race has the peaceful trait. They don't like the war. They start getting angry and rioting and stuff. Now Mr. Big is taking out 10 enemy ships for every 1 of his lost. The people don't care. They don't like ANY losses. Mr Big COULD win at any time if he used the planet busters or sent in enough ships to completly wipe out the other guy. But to keep all the other empires from getting mad and the other Mr. EVIL from using his planet busters they don't. So in the end they have to pull back and out to keep their people from rioting and having all this other bad stuff that goes along with it happening.

Mr half system for EVIL goes and conquers Mr other half system.

The end.

Now it wasn't technology that won here, and it wasn't strategy or tactics in the battle field. It was the art of using the other guy against himself. And the art of using two big MEEs against each other.

[Askan Nightbringer]

OK...back from my public holiday (go the Diggers!), but probabaly not for too long coz the office is half empty and therefore its been declared a boozy lunch at the pub day.

For my first hypothesis I'm going to state that strategy in SE in no way mimics strategy in real life. This is largely due to the fact the that SE is a computer game and has limits, reducing possible actions to just a handful, with known bounds on anything from technology to methods of warfare.

Now getting back to offensive/defensive bonuses and importance to any success.
First I'de like to state there are two forms of defeat in SE4.
1. An early sneak attack. Whether its backstabbing an ally (rare coz I rarely see alliances break), stealth armour and planetry napalm or swarming in on an unsuspecting empire coz the player believes everyone likes to trade colonisation tech before they fight. Nothing really matters in either of these cases, the defender dies (either quickly or they flop around like a dying fish for a while).

2. A more conventional defeat. These are usually broken into two battles. The first battle is where the invader busts through the defence of one side, usually the defender's older ships that have been sitting on a warp point. The second battle is where the defender does a mad scramble of all available ships and throws them into a Last ditch defence.

I've seen the second scenario replayed a dozen or so times. More often than not the battles are extremely lopsided, with one side been completely wiped and the other suffering few losses. The defender suffers a demoralising defeat, the invader an almost embarrasing victory. The ships can even appear similiar in technology.

There are really only 2 factors in these battle that lead to the defeat.
1. Ship placement. (My gripe with SE combat at the moment). Besides the case where one fleet come through the warp point (I know where that fleet ends up) I have no idea why SE places the ships where it does. I've seen battles where one side forms a neat little queue to the killing zone, when both sides are completely scattered over the map or in a recent battle between 70 attacking dreadnaught against me (50 battleships) and my ally (30 base ships) I ended up packed tightly in one corner, my ally in the opposite corner and the attacking dreadnaughts scattered around where I was, including some ships that were completely surrounded by my ships.

2. One side only hits 1 in 6 shots, the other side hits pretty much every time.

Although there is nothing you can do about 1 (or I think there is anyway), number 2 is all about your offensive/defensive bonuses.
Success in the game does NOT depend on technological advantage, its depends on an advantage in the correct technologies. You can concede a disadvatange in shields, ship size, weapons, construction, resource production as long as you are superior in offence/defence.


Well thats my scientific explanation of strategy in SE4. Obviously I think about it too much but I must say that about 1 in 10 turns I play are after coming back from the pub. So maybe Belisarius is right..its about 90% science and 10% art http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Askan

[geoschmo]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by askan:
Success in the game does NOT depend on technological advantage, its depends on an advantage in the correct technologies. You can concede a disadvatange in shields, ship size, weapons, construction, resource production as long as you are superior in offence/defence.
<hr></blockquote>

I am starting to see your point here. However I still feel that much of what you are calling science is actually art. It takes the knowledge and skill to know when to research these techs. To develop the plan, and to be able to adapt it to what your enemy is doing.

Something that just hit me like a ton of bricks in our recent game is that fact that the defensive bonuses for Steath Armor, Scattering Armor, and ECM all stack. I am not sure why I didn't already know that, but I was under the misunderstanding that you only got the highest defensive bonus of one of those three, not all three.

So you could say that you wiped me out because of the science of the armor defense bonuses, or the art of not knowing when to research them.

Geoschmo

[Skulky]

A few historical comments that i missed out on adding before when they were more relevant but anyway here goes.

The German's lost against the Russians, not because they couldn't fight or had bad military leadership, instead it was the fact that Hitler (one of the stupidest leaders of all time) tried to run the military campaign. His politics and insane generalship got in the way. If Rommel or any other halfway competent general had run the campaign on his timetable with his units he would have won. I played a simulation against a very smart opponent as the Germans and won, hands down, I took worse losses than the Germans initially but ended up winning cause the weather effects didn't hit me in the end.

Vietnam, same goes for Mog, if we (being hte US) had put our backs behind it we would have done a lot better, if the men on the ground had been told to kick their asses anyway they could the war woudl have been won, problem was that the "managment" was telling them where to fight and how hard, furthermore there was no general objective or strategy. I just read "the things they carried" great boook and the soldiers felt like all they did was walk around, shoot ppl burn villages and keep walking. In WW2 we had a job to do with straight foward lines, Vietnam needed definition and objectives.

Finally, in Somalia the men there took on something they couldn't handle with their current ROE (dont' kill ppl that arn't shooting you). If htey had went in and out by helicopter, or the trucks hadn't gotten lost, OR they had been authorized to kill anyone who wasn't american and brought in heavy artillery they woudl have won, the odds the fought against and still survived were amazing.

Finally, Finally, american's can't take causlties. When Stalin lost a million in a battle he gave htem all medals and their families grieved and the neighbors thought those who had died heros. Here we point the finger at the government for causing these losses. The biggest lesson i learned while playing, surprise surprise, Starcraft was that you're going to lose some people. Hell you're goign to lose a lot of ppl. Loses should be minimized but not to the extent of tactical consideration. I wouldn't want to die, but when this mentality forces paralysis it isn't acceptable.

[Gryphin]

Skulky,
I think you are agreeing with all of us.
It came down to the quality of the equpiment on both sides and the way they were deployed and used. To me that translates "Science and Art".

[Talenn]

geoschmo et al:

While you are quite correct that it does eventually come down to outthinking the enemy, I think he brings up a valid point.

If you know what the 'best' weapons and ship archetypes are, why bother to have a tremendously rich tech tree of items that are clearly inferior to the 'tried and true' method? I think most people are convinced that Missiles are utterly useless past the initial stages of the game. Same goes for half of the weapons in the 'standard' tech set...they just arent worth it compared to some of the other weapons.

So, in essence you have plenty of choices, but if you want to compete, you really dont. It comes down to strategic maneuver, yes, but why include the rest if it isnt anything but window dressing?

I went through once long ago (v1.21 or so) and modded the heck out of the game to try and rebalance a lot of things in the game. I was quite pleased by the results, but I had to spend entirely too much time tweaking the AIs to accomodate my changes and I eventually lost interest after the patches kept adding to the workload. Now, I just play the 'standard' techset simply to avoid having to constantly update my date for patches.

But after a few games recently, I'm inclined to agree with askan in that there is really a fairly easily found 'formula' to success. Personally, I think future patches should be devoted to tweaking the existing gameplay so as to make many of the option already present in the game seem more palatable. One thing I've noticed about SE4 is that there are rarely any 'Guns or Butter' decisions in the tech tree. Most of the econ techs arent worth it vis a vis the military ones. The only real decision is which military techs to research and even that is limited by the somewhat unbalanced state of the various weapons.

At any rate, I think that askan's point is very valid and would like to see those points addressed at some point in the future if balance tweaks are still possible in the 'real' set.

Thanx,
Talenn

[geoschmo]

Talenn,

I don't think Askan has even tried to make the point that there is only one best weapon. In fact he has as much as stated it really doesn't matter what weapon you choose, that combat is driven by the various attack and defense bonuses.

While I can see Askan's point has some merit, I can't agree with yours at all. You can do a spreadsheet and calculate which weapon has the highest damage to weight ratios if you want. But I disagree that that takes any element of choice from the game. There are enough differences among weapons in cost and amount of research requiqired to allow for plenty of variety.

Askan's point is about the fact that regardless of weponry if you want to succeed the races that get have the offensive and deefensive bonuses will have the early advantage, and those that get to the ecm, Cbt sensors, and stealth and scattering armor first will have the most sucess. That's an argument I can't really disagree with, but I don't think it's one that forces people into one choice in weaponry.

The fact is, and I think Askan would agree with this, that given a similer base starting point of these combat modifyng techs, there are numerous other decisions in ships design and strategy taht all have their various tradeoffs.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Many people have complained about the lack of weapon balance in this game. Many have dedicated to "fixing" the problem. And as of yet I have not seen any mods that are any better than the stock game in that respect. If someone want's to show me one, I'd be happy to play it.

Geoschmo

[capnq]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> So, in essence you have plenty of choices, but if you want to compete, you really dont. It comes down to strategic maneuver, yes, but why include the rest if it isnt anything but window dressing? <hr></blockquote>Because not everybody considers competition to be the sole reason for playing.

For people who prefer approaching the game as art, the "window dressing" provides a huge palette to work with. The scientists will probably defeat the artists when they go head-to-head, but the artists are less likely to get bored with using the same tactics all the time.

IMO, science "versus" art is a false dichotomy; science and art are ends of a spectrum, not an either/or choice.

[Phoenix-D]

"Many have dedicated to "fixing" the problem. And as of yet I have not seen any mods that are any better than the stock game in that respect"

Mostly because when they (I http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) start, they find out that A. things are a little better balanced than they thought and B. it's *hard* getting things balanced right.

Look at the APB. On a pure damage/kt scale, this thing is a monster- 2.3 damage/kt. However..it also costs almost 2 million research points to fully research, on medium tech cost. Something like the Meson BLaster, which does 'only' 1.75 damage/kt and is a bit shorter ranged, costs less than a quarter. In other words, you can have Meson VIs much, much sooner than someone can have APB XIIs. Mesons also have no damage dropoff.

The Wave Motion Gun. Costs less than the APB to research (true!) though you only get it at the very end of the research chain. Damage/kt rating of 2; damage/kt/turn rating of a less than stellar .67. However, you *can* run out of range with it while it's recharging, it does full damage along it's entire range, and it gets a 30% bonus to hit!

Quantum torpedo. Damage/kt: 2.5 1.25 per turn. Again, cheaper than the APB, if only because it has two less levels to research.

Missiles are a special case; they and fighters are weak because PD is so effective, not because they're weak in and of themselves. You can't saturate an enemies defenses when your weapons are twice as big AND fire three times slower.

Economy is very important BTW. Research center upgrades will get you that tech faster, miner upgrades (and computers) will put more ships in space. It's worthless to have the most high tech ship in the game if the enemy can field so many of his slightly lower tech ships he overwhelms and destroys you.

Phoenix-D

[Skulky]

my first question for Phoenix is "what do you do with all those extra worlds dedicated to research when you know it all?" I can't figure out any good quick solution. Also if you have a ton of spaceyards that is the fastest way to victory, even if they produce slower you can get them in greater amounts than planets so they make up for it in spades.

[Loser]

Rather than two ends of the same specturm, would not Art and Science (say it like you feel seomthinG: "_SCIENCE!_") be two separate axis. Within the area defined by these axis are all the activities imaninable.

Possibly there are other axis, to define every possible action.... Like 'wack' there really ought to be a scale of 'wack'.

[Phoenix-D]

"my first question for Phoenix is "what do you do with all those extra worlds dedicated to research when you know it all?" I"

Scrap the research buildings and make something else. The speed advantage you gain in research is worth it.

EDIT: and I wasn't talking about *building* the ships per se. I was talking about having enough cash to build and maintain them.

Phoenix-D

[ 29 April 2002: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]</p>

[Talenn]

geoschmo et al:

Well, perhaps my wording was somewhat imprecise. You are correct that the weapons are somewhat varied in terms of research/kt/damage payoff, but from the games I've seen and played in, the players seem more or less pigeonholed into many decisions if they want to be competitive with other humans who are following the 'prefered' (for lack of a better term) strategies.

What I drew from Askan's post and from my own experience is that its mostly about Combat To-hit and Defensive bonus and Direct Fire weapons. Missiles dont even rate on the scale for the reason list below by Phoenix-D. The other weapons more or less depend on the stage of the game you are at and the amount of time you have to research rather than any real 'feel' of the weapons. By that, I would like to have seen more 'flavor' differences. For example, Torps that are monsterously damaging, but inaccurate. Some beams that could be extremely accurate, but low damage. Missiles could vary dramatically as well. Point defenses could have trade offs between range and accuracy.

I'm aware that some of these interactions are already present in the game, but generally not simultaneously. You have to focus down one path to optimize and that path will be the best one you can choose at that time. What I would have prefered is a selection of weapons down one path that would have strengths and weaknesses in relation to each other without the 'artificial' need to base it solely on tech level and damage/kt/turn.

Its hard to explain, I suppose, but I'd like to see more weapon be necessary for a variety of opponents. The little 'scraper' weapons might be useless vs a heavily armored/shielded rock, but could actually hit the fast little ships while the huge capital ship weapons could penetrate the toughest defense, but cant engage the small fries. In effect, you would need a combined arms approach.

In the current SE4, I dont see that. Usually you just stuff your hulls with most of the best weapon you know and be done with it. There is no trade-off in the weapons at that point. There is only a 'best' which is generally equally good vs all comers.

To me at least, a large portion of the tech tree seems unnecessary to be successful (at least on Medium sized maps...on large maps a lot changes, but its a VERY long process to play MP games on the larger maps). Most of our games center on developing beam weapons out the wazoo and going with the support of those weapons. No one goes down any of the interesting side paths as they simply dont provide enough return compared to players who 'go for the kill'.

Some other examples would be the 'Engine' techs. Every three levels you get something and the other changes are bare window dressing. My tech set added 'efficiency' at each level that wasnt giving a new movement bonus...ie, flavor.

Another example would be weapon mounts. In the base set, there is no good reason not to use the largest mount possible. That leads to less decision making and more 'pigeon holing'. I'd like to see a geometric increase in the cost (not size, as that changes the equation) or else 'to hit' penalties to make the ships have definate role rather than simply being better.

I guess that is my main 'complaint'...there is very little opportunity cost to most techs. They are simply better than the lower cost ones. IMO, increased tech should provide greatly increased options. But I dont see that here as often as I'd like. Generally, I keep the same 'decision cycle' and just the numbers change...eq, instead of a gun that does 30 out to range 5, it now does 35 and next level it will do 40 out to 6 and so on.

Hopefully that has explained my opinion a bit better than the previous attempt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

capnq:

Well, when I play singleplayer and just want to relax and 'role play' my race a bit, I tend to research the more esoteric techs too, but this post seemed to concern art or science in a competitive game. Everything changes when you are playing against people who dont fall for the same tricks time and again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Talenn]

My old mod (pre-gold) had many of those kinds of tweaks and choices in there, but they totally screwed up the AI. Given that my group cant often get enough people to play that we can totally dispense with the AIs, the requirement is that they can at least provide interesting opposition in the game.

I'd love to go back and work on a mod that totally cuts the AI lose, but with the number of times I'd actually be able to use it, I just dont think it would be worth all of the time and effort.

I really liked the Devnullmod as it coincided with many of my own mods (in fact, I even got a small mention in the readme. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Perhaps now that the new Version is out, I'll give it another go, but the quality of the AI is generally not up to the TDM level for singleplayer play. Most of the folks I play with want to learn one mod and stick with it in multi and single player so that is why we had reverted back to the standard tech set.

Another change that I'd like to see again are real trade-offs in ship sizes. Larger ships should get expensive far more quickly. The way it is now, the larger ship classes are marginally more expensive due to all ships having the same general requirements...Bridge, LS, Crew, and ~6 Engines. The 'hull' cost is only equal to its size, and when a ship is totalling at 5700 minerals, the difference between a DS at 300 and a CA at 500 is miniscule. SE3 did a good job of showing the differences because of the Engine requirements on the larger vessels. Also, since they were build by component rather than cost, a larger ship took a LOT more time to build. In SE4 standard, a DS might take 3 turns and CA only 5. Thats just not enough incentive to build DS's once CAs or anything else are available. In my original mod, cost (and therefore build time and upkeep) was a huge factor in the larger hulls, but unfortunately changing a million AI construction files to 'understand' that was too much of a hassle for something I consider a pastime and a hobby. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyways, I'll probably get bit by the 'modding bug' again here in the near future. If I make any significant changes, I'll post 'em up here again for folks to see and piddle with.

Thanx,
Talenn

[geoschmo]

I think with the size of the user base on PBW, there may be enough of a demand for a "Human only" mod. I could be wrong, but I present as evidence that the "No-AI" mod is one of the most frequently used mods for PBW games.

Of course that is a far cry from the general use that a good single player mod like TDM gets, but I think it might be worth giving it a go.

I am getting a little off topic of this thread though so I think I will start a new discussion.

Geo

[PvK]

Talenn, have you looked at my Proportions mod (http://www.latibulum.com/pvk/proportions) yet? One of the main points (besides slowing down development of colonies and research) is to provide large numbers of valid design trade-offs. Small ships remain viable. Fighters and troops become almost necessary. Trade-offs appear between fast ships and long-range ships, firepower versus protection, quality versus economy, and so on.

I have adjusted the weapons and abilities around to make more variety of effective design. I had started a massive overhaul of the weapons and technologies, but these had to be cut from the original mod design for time reasons before the Gold deadline - just the manual work of re-doing the weapon entires was what took the most time, but eventually I might get around to it.

I too decided the AI had to come second. I actually have managed to get it to mostly work, but it takes way less time to set up interesting game changes that it does to tweak the AI to use them.

PvK

[Phoenix-D]

"No one goes down any of the interesting side paths as they simply dont provide enough return compared to players who 'go for the kill'."

The 'side paths' in this case are mostly more weapons; aside from a few specialized weapons like the Null Space and Shield Depleter, there isn't any reason to go down these, true. My point was more that you don't have to pick any specific weapon to be effective. My weapons selection generally depends on what I feel like using OR what will help me most.

-if I expect conflict very early, DUC
-a little later, PPB
-a little later, torps or meson
-fairly late
-if I am isolated, I research APB or Wave Motion

Phoenix-D

[geoschmo]

Talenn,

I agree that those kinds of choices would be nice to have, and would add even more flavor to the game. Adding those sounds as if it would be quite a daunting task. I know from experience that what you said about modding is correct. It's hard to do at all, even harder to do right, and then having to tweak things every time a new patch comes out... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

In the Devnull mod we did something very similer to engines, making the mid-steps more efficent. My goal as to extend those out even further, for example, Ion-Engines out to level 6 or higher, where each level had increasing levels of efficency, or cheaper cost. Ad then when you switched to a new engine tech you lost all that in favor of more speed, and had to research down that thread. Never got aroud to that, and I was thinking it would have been hell to teach the AI how to use them.

Actually I am thinking about doing a new mod, and just conceding the AI from the start. That was always the limiting factor when working on the Devnull mod. We spent 3 hours in AI tweaking (work) for every one hour of brainstroming and designing new components (fun). In the end some ideas had to be scrapped not because they didn't work, or were unbalancing, but just because we couldn't get the AI to use them correctly. And when it comes to patch updates, that is almost always the majority of the work, making changes because now the AI stopped using something.

But if you think about it, how good is the AI ever? Even the TDM AI can't beat me unless I give them big bonuses or handicap myself in some way. But on the other hand I lose a lot more PBW games than I win. Not to mention I play so many PBW games I don't even have time for solo games, unless I am mod testing AI. So why bother right?

Something I'm going to have to think about some more.

Geoschmo

[Askan Nightbringer]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by geoschmo:
I think with the size of the user base on PBW, there may be enough of a demand for a "Human only" mod. I could be wrong, but I present as evidence that the "No-AI" mod is one of the most frequently used mods for PBW games.

Of course that is a far cry from the general use that a good single player mod like TDM gets, but I think it might be worth giving it a go.

I am getting a little off topic of this thread though so I think I will start a new discussion.

Geo<hr></blockquote>

I think a human only mod is an excellent idea. I was looking for your new discussion but couldn't find it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I build valuation models for a living and was speculating about using Present Values to analyse the tech tree. I could build a complex model using resource/research costs, current research/resource production and expected growth (and decline because of maintenance) of these parameters to work out say the present value of capital ship missiles 2 vs the present value of point defence 3.
Don't know if it would be useful but it would be way cool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Askan

[Atrocities]

Not to make light of this topic, but too me SEIV is neither a science or an art form. For me stratigy in SEIV is pure luck. Plain and simple, I role the dice everytime I process a turn. Will my race be conqured by a band of green pig people, will my ship make it through the warp point without getting obliterated on the other side? Stuff like that.

[Hank]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Atrocities:
Not to make light of this topic, but too me SEIV is neither a science or an art form. For me stratigy in SEIV is pure luck. Plain and simple, I role the dice everytime I process a turn. Will my race be conqured by a band of green pig people, will my ship make it through the warp point without getting obliterated on the other side? Stuff like that.<hr></blockquote>

I strongly disagree. SEIV far from pure luck (otherwise I wouldnt be playing it!). SEIV is built on strategy. In strategy, you direct your forces to produce a favorable result from combat.

Probability is the "roll of the dice" you mention. The Science of Strategy is predicting the outcome of combat via probabilities. Calculating this involves math and while it can be tedious, it can be solved.

The Art of Strategy is plan or method by which you finesse the probabilities of combat to achieve that favorable result. The Art involves such things as trickery, feints, misdirection, essentially strategems. The Art is the human side of combat, where you win by out-thinking your opponent.

[ 01 May 2002: Message edited by: Hank ]</p>

[Master Belisarius]

I support the Hank's words.

"Therefore I say: One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose. One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle." Sun-Tzu, The Art of War, chap 3
(Thanks Geo!)

For example, if you know your ships and the enemy ships, there is not any luck when you start a battle... but if you don't know the performance of your ships compared with the ships of your enemies, then, the result will be pure luck.

A good player always will try to reduce the random aspects of the game.