 |
| |
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Lets put it this way . . . If I were fighting you,I would LOVE to see all those clean units coming at me. Even if I lose a unit for every one I kill, I still win the battle of the minerals. Assumign similar industrial capacities, you lose . . . PERIOD. |
Flubber, if I were fighting you, I wouldn't be stupid enough to send units into your territory, especially if I had clean units...
While you most likely are much better than me at SMAC, if you attacked me first (assuming you did not use missiles or PBs), you would exhaust more resources attacking me than I would defending against you...the same would go for almost any war, with almost any decent players...the defender has the advantage in wars...
On the other hand, in small battles between individual units, the attacker usually has the advantage, unless attacking a base...
Let's make a scenario...let's say I have 3 4-1-2 units in my base, and a 1-3-1 garrison...all units have clean reactors...
You have 5 8-1-2 speeders, and you decide to attack my base...there's just one problem, you can't get within range of my base without getting attacked first...so say that all your units are elite, and are three squares from my base (and therefore could theoretically attack my base next turn)...assuming I'm not sleeping that day, and I have a road in every square (like I always do), then I use my 3 speeders to attack 3 of your speeders...obviously, with 4-1 odds, I'd most likely win each battle, and each speeder would most likely not be damaged below 50%, and therefore, would have 1/3 of a movement point left...if each of these speeders used that movement point to attempt to form a ZOC, I could guarentee that altleast one of your speeders could not attack my base the next turn...if you attack my base with the other speeder, you wipe out the garrison, but you won't be able to take the base...if you attack two of my speeders in the field, I use the third one to wipe out one of your 2 remaining speeders, and then return it to base...I now have 2 units, and you only have 1...
In any case, I would only loose 2 units, and you'd lose atleast 4, possibly 5 if you decided to attack in the first place...I'm sorry, but the cost of adding clean reactor to 4 units is not the same cost of 4 8-1-2 units...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
Commy
Nice but very basic analysis of the difficulty in attacking a prepared base with ground troops. It repeats the types of things I have been saying on here for about 3 years . . . that the best defense is in having a ready offensive force with mobility to crush attackers etc.
I agree completely that if I was ever stupid enough to send an unarmoured ground force against the base, they have to attack first or they die futilely. In your scenario, I would be better off to bring a couple of extra 1-1-2s or 1-1-1s as sacrificial lambs OR a couple of 1-3-2s if I had a morale advantage that would make them survivable OR a worm OR some arty to strike at your roads OR OR OR . . . IT would be silly beyond belief to send 5 8-1-2s
Too bad it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the clean ability issue.
The point on clean is that for units that actually fight and die, the ability is rarely worthwhile as the payback of 1 mineral a turn "saved" only gets "repaid " if the unit lives long enough . Even then, you have to consider what you could have done with the minerals or energy credits from the rush/upgrade. heck if I could say use that same money/minerals to rush a crawler that could even crawl an empty forest tile for minerals, I am AHEAD a mineral a turn
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
Flubber, if I were fighting you, I wouldn't be stupid enough to send units into your territory, especially if I had clean units...
|
I would most definitely be sending units at you--While my skills have some gaps, the thing I have been good at is military tactics. Check with my PBEM opponents 
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
if you attacked me first (assuming you did not use missiles or PBs), you would exhaust more resources attacking me than I would defending against you...the same would go for almost any war, with almost any decent players...the defender has the advantage in wars...
On the other hand, in small battles between individual units, the attacker usually has the advantage, unless attacking a base...
|
I agree that a player has an advantage with respect to battles fought in their own territory. It pretty obvious . . . shorter attack lines, ability to use sensors, quick retreat to bases with repair and defence enhancing facilities-- I hesitate to use the word "defender" since as I have repeated on here many times, with tech parity there is no unit or combination of units that can have even a 50% chance of survival if in the open against an attack from the available enemy units. Build any group and put them in the open and an enemy can build a stack costing the same minerals that can kill it .
All that said, you don't want wars in your own territory. If all I has was ground forces, I wouldn't send FIVE expensive units on a suicide mission against a base. I would be more likely to send 10 or 12 cheap 2-1-2s and 4-1-2s on raids against your crawlers, formers and infrastructure-- You know-- appear, kill a crawler and use the last 1/3 of a movement point to tear up a road or borehole. I don't even need to kill all that much if I keep you from developing in certain directions and can cause you to build military infrastructure while I surge onward with techa nd economy
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
Let's make a scenario...let's say I have 3 4-1-2 units in my base, and a 1-3-1 garrison...all units have clean reactors...
You have 5 8-1-2 speeders, and you decide to attack my base...there's just one problem, you can't get within range of my base without getting attacked first...so say that all your units are elite, and are three squares from my base (and therefore could theoretically attack my base next turn)...assuming I'm not sleeping that day, and I have a road in every square (like I always do), then I use my 3 speeders to attack 3 of your speeders...obviously, with 4-1 odds, I'd most likely win each battle, and each speeder would most likely not be damaged below 50%, and therefore, would have 1/3 of a movement point left...if each of these speeders used that movement point to attempt to form a ZOC, I could guarentee that altleast one of your speeders could not attack my base the next turn...if you attack my base with the other speeder, you wipe out the garrison, but you won't be able to take the base...if you attack two of my speeders in the field, I use the third one to wipe out one of your 2 remaining speeders, and then return it to base...I now have 2 units, and you only have 1...
In any case, I would only loose 2 units, and you'd lose atleast 4, possibly 5 if you decided to attack in the first place...I'm sorry, but the cost of adding clean reactor to 4 units is not the same cost of 4 8-1-2 units... |
As I said before, your scenario was ridiculous. Against an enemy with limited defenders and a good offensive stack, it is obvious you need to either have good defenders or sacrifice some units on the way in. So maybe some armor 3 ECM defenders if I could get a morale advantage, maybe ONE 8-1-2 and a few 4-1-2s.
If I can't get defensible units then I think just a few cheapo units to send ahead to die so my good offensive units can shoot first
Oh and maybe I would bring along some formers and instabuild a road connecting to your road so I DO get the first shot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
Let's just say for fun, that you and me were at war...
We both have all the level five techs, and roughly are equal in power...
My strategy probably isn't the best, but all the same, here it is...
Let's just say that by pure luck I manage to do a surprise attack on you...All the below would be done on the same turn...
First, I send in interceptors to attack your formers and crawlers...if any of your interceptors scramble, then our ships will fight weapon to weapon...let's say that you scramble an air defense and match each of my attacking interceptors, and let's say that, given equal weapon values and all else, I loose half my interceptors, and you loose half your interceptors...
Next, I attack with bombers, which take out formers and crawlers...
Next would come the missiles, if any...they'd most likely attack bases on the coast and bases, if any, bordering me...
Next would be amphibious assualt...any decent bases on the coast would be hit hard with missiles, and with any luck, most of the garrison will be gone...so now, I attack those bases with marines and amphibious units...the transports carrying these units will already be in position the turn before to move in on target bases...the amphibious units themselves will have no armor, but the transports will also be carrying garrisons, some with ECM, some with AA tracking, along with a few speeders...
Any transports carrying marine units that fail to successfully destroy all defenders will bring the garrisons and speeders back to home...
If we had a land border, I'd start moving in what I call field armies...a few garrisons, maybe 2 or 3, with ECM and AA tracking...there would also be attacking units, a few infantry with high weapon, no armor, and a few speeders that would also have high weapon, no armor...
Probe foils would be sent into coastal bases to do whatever damage they could...
If the game was a bit later, and I had Adv. Ecological Engineering, I would use numerous sea formers to attempt to sink some of your bases (I'd only do this if I knew you didn't have pressure domes)...
All this, if I pulled it off right, and it was my lucky day, might get me a few coastal bases, your former and crawler armies would be damaged badly, your airforce (interceptors) damaged, and I'd have armies ready to attack your bases within the next turn or two...
And on your turn, you'd (most likely, I don't know your strategy) destroy any fleeing transports and their cargo with bombers, use any remaining interceptors and SAM artillery and units to attack my bombers, use speeders, infantry, and/or bombers to attack my field armies, and most likely, most of my probe teams would now be dead from attacking your defensive probe teams...
All in all, I'd probably have exhausted many troops, and would now have to deal with your counterattack and cleaning up any of my troops in your territory...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
Okay, now, here is a list of all the units I'd use in the campaign, with ** by all the ones that I'd give clean reactors...
1-1-6 transports**, each containing...
2--8-1-1 amphibious units
2--1-4-1 ECM, AA tracking units
The amphibious units would most likely all die, if a few survived they'd be sent back to the homeland...the garrisons put into the newly conquered bases, if any, would most likely not live long either...on the other hand, if the transports, mostly empty, weren't attack by your bombers or ships, they could come back, possibly to get more units...I'd put clean reactors on these, because they have the highest chance of survival (although still slim) since you might instead decide to bomb my units on the ground or my bases...also, transports are handy to keep around, and I'd hate having to support them...
The interceptors and bombers...
8-1-?? (movement depends on morale, I don't know the default)** bombers
8-1-?? SAM **
Half the interceptors would survive the next turn, probably a third would make it back to base after your SAM land units, if any, made their move...
If most of your interceptors are drawn out, the bombers are relatively safe that turn...it is highly unlikely that your land SAM units could destroy even a good number of my bombers or interceptors, especially if your interceptors are already tied up...
Next is field armies...
1-4-1 ECM AA tracking
8-1-1**
8-1-2** SAM (attack any interceptors or bombers you use to counterattack)
The garrisons for the field armies would be expendable, I guess, but hopefully, the offensive units wouldn't be hurt, and would have a chance to attack, get a base, and set camp (probably have some 1-4-2 ECM AA tracking units move around, also cover conquered bases), so I'd give the offensive units clean, as hopefully, once in a garrisoned base, they'll survive...
This strategy isn't perfect (probably crappy compared to some of the stuff done on PBEMs), but my first wave would most likely fail, and then you'd counterattack, and probably stretch my defenses so far I'd try and sue for peace, you'd get any base I took from you back, and then we'd hit a stalemate, possibly leaning in your favor...
The point is, this is just to give you an idea of what units I'd put clean reactor on...not all of them, but a good majority, especially the ones kept in my territory to deal with any counterattacks that aren't even mentioned...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
If most of your interceptors are drawn out, the bombers are relatively safe that turn...it is highly unlikely that your land SAM units could destroy even a good number of my bombers or interceptors, especially if your interceptors are already tied up...
. |
I generally have a couple of chopper interceptor units that are in a base back a tile or two from the frontlines. Each one would likely kill 4-8 bombers unless they had interceptor coverage.
A couple of points more generally
1. I am paranoid about opponent's troop dispositions, almost extremely so . .. I have had more than one treatymate complain about my attacks on them when I perceived a threat. If see TWO choppers in range of me, I think you are preparing for war.
2. My patrolling or offshore radar platforms should reveal any amphibious forces PRIOR to your attack and unless they are sitting in bases, they should be dead dead dead.Make a big stack to protect yourself and I'll self destruct them to death.
3. You assume getting a LOT of forces in place without my noticing. In my PBEMs I almost always demanded nonmilitarized zones. As soon as there was more than 1-2 offensive units in strike range of me I would consider war imminent and act accordingly.
4. I would not consider it smart to have significant crawlers within range of a hostile air force. Even with a one turn suspicion that the attack was coming, some of that stuff would be moved to the protection of a base. But more generally I try to develop crawler fields deeper inside my empire. generally if an enemy can get to my crawler field from their territory and then kill 3 or more crawlers before running out of movement, thats too much
5. I would use far less interceptors than you seem to contemplate. I kill interceptors with SAM rovers and I kill bombers with SAM choppers. I usually don't want interceptors scrambling and would prefer to see how your bombers or missiles would fare against a aerocomplex and AA combo.
6. You have to assume that I would see your buildup coming and respond according to the circumstances. If you are building amphibious forces, I increase water patrols and my offshore radar platform. The plan is to find you and kill you on the water. Heck -- I might even start raising land just to creat an outcriopping or finger of land. I did that once -- saw an opponent with large amphibious forces and I raised land such that my nearest 4 or 5 bases to him were now 2 tiles inland!!
If you build choppers, I upgrade some AA troops and ensure sensors for added defense. Missiles . . depends on my armour possibilities-- If I can field some 1-<4>-1 AA troops inside an AC with sensor coverage, I will take those odds. Your intereceptors I would largely ignore except to make sure I have a couple of SAM rovers. If you stack too many they get self-destructed to death
Interesting to talk tactics.Whenever I have lost to another human, its never been about tactics. I have lost by being out-built or out-teched or when I was ganged up on. I don't think I was ever truly suprise attacked-- Like I said, I am paranoid to the extreme. ( It probably came from one of my first PBEM games where a player accidentally sent an email to EVERYONE in the game (all 4) instead of just the other two. It was a reply to a reply to a reply that showed clearly that all 3 of the other players planned to gang up on me in about 10 years after some preparation. . . all while professing peaceful intentions to me. It was actually funny to read people talk about how I was buying their story . As I say, one of my very first PBEMs and it led me to TRUST no one.
Last edited by Flubber on 05-08-2005 at 01:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
Paranoid? Oh, I used to be that way, but I haven't played MP for a very long time (and I don't think with anyone from Apolyton)...
Anyway, it appears that most of military tactics in MP depends on your infiltrators...as said again and again, SMAC is a Rock Papers Scissors game...no matter what you have, something else could destroy, there is no ultimate defense...
About infiltrators though...I was reading some parts of The Art of War (thought it may help in Shogun, a rather good strategy game for real time), and one line really got me interested and I had an idea for SMAC...something like this..."if you are traveling far, prepare like you are going a short distance; likewise, if you are traveling near, make your enemy think you are preparing for a long journey..."
I thought maybe if I build units that will have nothing to do with my actual strategy...for example, if I knew you had infiltrated me, I might build a hole bunch of speeders or tanks, all with amphibious ability, and build a few transports...then, instead of doing amphibious assaults, I do a direct attack on land...risky, but all the same...
On the other hand, I could build a whole bunch of units with both amphibious and air superiority special abilities...expensive, yes, but you wouldn't exactly know how I would use the units...
Last edited by Commy on 06-08-2005 at 07:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
Commy
Misdirection is a key element. I would frequently do things like build a couple of probeships which would promptyly hide in my crawler fields. The could probe an approaching ship but more likely, they would never be used. Their value is in the fact that my opponent had no idea where they were. Everywhere he tried to expand or build, he had to bring probe protection or sweep the adjacent seas.
I have heard the rock /paper scissors idea with SMAX before and I agree with it some extent but I think that more prevalent is the idea that outside bases, the player that shoots first wins. The only ways therefore to overcome an opponent is to suprise them or overwhelm them with numbers or superior forces. . . . and lets face it , most people will make tactical mistakes.
Thats why in most of my PBEMS I worked hard to prevent my opponents having any real shoot first capability. The only bases I wanted them to be able to reach very well would be my hardened military outposts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaos Theory
|
 |
Missouri / Misery; CC
Oct 2002
time: 04:37
|
|
Tachyon fields come in the late mid game. I'd use them, given the opportunity, at selected peripheral bases. Combine this with aerospace complexes and AAA, and defenders are more-or-less impervious to air. However, if I see you do that, I'll attack in another way, perhaps amphibiously, perhaps by probe, perhaps just to nettle you, but your defenses, unless skillful, serve to redirect my strength, rather than blunt it. If your defenses are too complete, I'll outbuild you, relying on more parsimonious defense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
If a base has AA and ECM units, and has perimeter defense and tachyon shield, and isn't on the coast, how would you attack the base? If it had an aerospace complex, even missiles wouldn't be effective, and with ECMs, the only units that would even stand a chance would be slow infantry...probe teams wouldn't even work, as it is relatively easy to have a decent probe garrison...
Although, given your point that you could just redirect your military, I guess if its the only base left standing, its pretty much screwed...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaos Theory
|
|
Missouri / Misery; CC
Oct 2002
time: 04:37
|
|
Specifically for this case:
If you have just one or two hardened defenders, I may sacrifice some units to destroy them, and take the base. If you have many, and I'm still intent on taking the base, I'd rather siege it. If you have some counterattackers, I'll scorch your terrain with throwaway units (Impact needlejets are great). No terraforming -> few minerals -> few units supported -> fewer defenders. If you can defend the terrain as well, I'd better attack somewhere else first.
In SMAX, there's an interesting ability called dissociative wave. It is useful on offense, to cancel defensive abilities like AAA and ECM, though not base defenses. I haven't had the opportunity to use wave much, but it's available in the late mid game or early late game, and serves as at least a partial solution to entrenched defense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
I don't recall the game. Did we finish or was it one of the many I had to quit when I left PBEMing?
hmmm-- I found in my games that I lost, I was generally outbuilt, out-teched or out-diplomatted. I generally did well on the tactical side of things |
Ahh I looked it up-- This was the Smac game where I had the gaians with the believers and Hive as neighbors. You had the UNI and had close neighbors in the Morganites, Spartans, and PKs all in the vicinity of the jungle. IIRC the human controlled Spartans were pathetic-- They had a dream scenario with 3 other close factions and how they didn't manage to rush ANYONE, I'll never know. Anyway, my recollection was I tried to buttress the PKs by giving them some tech MM already had but he conquered them easily and took all the jungle and conquered BOTH other humans by 2167. The Morganites were either your submissive or your pactmate as well.
I doubt I could have come back and I think its fair to say MM would have won fairly easily. In that one I was definitely out-diplomatted as I shuld have supported the weakies better before you jumped them and ultimately I was out-built( I actually cringed when I saw two factions sharing the jungle) When I saw that, I figured my best chance was if both were strong. But I seem to recall that the PKs even lost a base to worms. The Hive and the Believers were hoplessly weak and no help at all going up the tech tree no matter what I gifted them.
My problem thinking back is that I don't know what I could have done to change things. perhaps a beeline to doc flex so I could get in contact with the humans earlier? I definitely needed to get in on some useful tech trades
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:37
|
|
I think the game suffered from the lack of CMN in that the starting positions were unequal. Mine was pretty good -- I had access to a part of the jungle and the rest of the terrain was normal. On the other hand, I was surrounded by three other factions, which is not ideal for my builder preferences.
The Spartans started in an abysmal position, the north eastern coast of the continent that was basically an arid wasteland. This accounted for quite a bit of their lousy start, although I don't think they were played as well as possible.
With two humans factions so close and space being very limited on a normal map, I knew I was in for a war sooner or later. Luckily, Uni is so quick at early research that I was able to beeline to Industrial Automation, switch to FM + wealth and then grab plasma armor and impact weapons to protect myself.
However, none of my neighbours were hostile early on which was very fortunate for me. I was able to trade techs with all of them and build in relative peace. In fact, since no one seemed to be interested in them, I managed to get nearly all of the early SPs.
The rest was pretty simple. I switched to Planned to pop boom and built an air force at the same time. When I switched back to FM I rehomed all the planes to an all-specialist base. I took out the Spartans and their ~3 cities and the PKs followed soon after.
I think the game would have been quite different if you had started on the same continent as the rest of us, Flubber. At least I doubt I would have had the luxury of grabbing all the SPs and attacking when it suited me the best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bluetemplar
|
|
Marseille
Apr 2005
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
with tech parity there is no unit or combination of units that can have even a 50% chance of survival if in the open against an attack from the available enemy units. Build any group and put them in the open and an enemy can build a stack costing the same minerals that can kill it . |
I disagree.
Assuming the tech gives 2 to 1 for the attack against defence : e.g. 2-1 ; 4-2 ; 6-3.
Assuming the attacker is a commando rover (+4*12.5%=+50%) against defender hardened (+2*12.5%=+25%) . (and after first units killed and some SE changes made the defenders often have as much morale than the defenders)
Assuming the defender stands on a rocky/forest/fungus with a sensor nearby (+50%+25%=+75%).
We have these strenghts : 3 against 2 (which is not so bad)
Now a bit later in the game:
6-*-2,gas (-25% defender) against *-3p-*,ECM : (+25% and +50%)
We have these strenghts :
6(+50%)=9 against 3(+25%-25%+75%+75%)=7.5
(which is even better)
And as a crippled attacker doesn't worth much anymore and will be easily destroyed by a counter-attacker you can fairly assume that the odds are even... furthermore that another function of a defender is to slow down the enemy progress.
In short IMHO a defender is as useful as a counter-attacker. (Things may change a bit with air power available but then you should have AAA to compensate)
Another thing:
In my experience , a SAM rover often kills 1 bomber and retreats without losses or 2 bombers and then is left on the open - for a cost less than of a bomber.
Last edited by bluetemplar on 09-08-2005 at 18:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
bluetemplar
|
|
Marseille
Apr 2005
time: 06:37
|
|
But the main problem is that there are too many variables... that's the charm of SMACX : you never have exactly the same conditions, same technologies at the same moment.
I like the defenders in field because they add far more strategy to this game than a best-1-rover : you can scout with them, mess up with enemy ZOC's, protect your boreholes/sensors and even maybe protect your own units for a counter attack (even if it's better with a transport-best-1)...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaos Theory
|
|
Missouri / Misery; CC
Oct 2002
time: 04:37
|
|
Forward defenders and skirmishers are very useful, just don't expect to be able to maintain them in the face of a large attack. Expect them to impair or attrit the attack instead.
Sea units really get shafted when it comes to defense. First, ships, when attacking other combat ships, get to choose whether to attack the opponent's weapon (with an artillery duel) or armor (with a normal attack). Thus, any defensive ship should have a weapon at least as strong as its armor. Second, the only terrain advantage at sea is fungus, which might not be where you need it. I'm not sure if sensors help ships, but if so they still don't reach far into the sea. Third, ships don't see nearly as far as they move, so if an opponent finds your ship by some means, he can move a ship into attacking range and attack, preventing you from counterattacking. Fourth, transports and other non-combat ships can't use AAA, so planes rip them up. Fifth, ships can't defend effectively in bases. Sixth, ships don't act as police.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chaos Theory
Thus, any defensive ship should have a weapon at least as strong as its armor. |
Or be stacked with a high weapon ship. If I attempt to fight at sea, and I often don't, I go for numbers. Before aircover is available, ships are just too fragile and once airpower is available I find them largely obsolete. I usually build them to capture seabases that airpower has cleared
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bluetemplar
But the main problem is that there are too many variables... that's the charm of SMACX : you never have exactly the same conditions, same technologies at the same moment.
I like the defenders in field because they add far more strategy to this game than a best-1-rover : you can scout with them, mess up with enemy ZOC's, protect your boreholes/sensors and even maybe protect your own units for a counter attack (even if it's better with a transport-best-1)... |
No and I'm not saying don't build defenders. A strong defensive unit can serve any number of good purposes. All I say is that with the usual tech situation, the weapon to armor ratio is 2 to 1 and any unit you can build has VERY limited survivability in the open.
my comments were about how survivable units are "in the open". This was in the context of someone attempting to attack with ground forces into my empire so at a minimum your defender has to lose his sensor coverage.
In addition, lets use common sense here. I would hardly ever bother to attack your strong defender inside your own territory unless there were other juicy units to kill underneath. And if said unit is coming towards my territory, you get no sensor and its pretty presumptious to assume you get a rocky or forest square to sit on. Its doubly presumptious when standard defensive ground doctrine is to road the good defensive square to create mobility to kill folks in the poor defensive squares
Have to go-- more later
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ka Plewy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Or be stacked with a high weapon ship. If I attempt to fight at sea, and I often don't, I go for numbers. Before aircover is available, ships are just too fragile and once airpower is available I find them largely obsolete. I usually build them to capture seabases that airpower has cleared |
Naval battles have always been a problem with the Civ/Smac franchises.
I have a long laundry list, but suffice it to say, a hex/tile based system for navies doesn't work on the strategic level. If we're playing a tactical game, then yes, it can work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Minute Mirage
I think the game suffered from the lack of CMN in that the starting positions were unequal. Mine was pretty good -- I had access to a part of the jungle and the rest of the terrain was normal. On the other hand, I was surrounded by three other factions, which is not ideal for my builder preferences.
|
it can be a big factor. My recollection was that I was in an arid area on a narrow strip of land and ended up developing along the north and down the east side of the "freshwater sea". I liked the idea of an inland trawler field until I saw the Hive had a port on that same sea.
It was a weird start since 4 of your were jammed in around the jungle and I was in a tight grouping of three around that sea. There were a couple of large landmasses that were completely empty.
quote:
Originally posted by Minute Mirage The Spartans started in an abysmal position, the north eastern coast of the continent that was basically an arid wasteland. This accounted for quite a bit of their lousy start, although I don't think they were played as well as possible.
|
I saw their bases were in crap locations but with neighbors that close they should have been able to intimidate SOMEONE. A laser rover with great morale can be a scary thing in 2110 after all.
quote:
Originally posted by Minute Mirage
However, none of my neighbours were hostile early on which was very fortunate for me. I was able to trade techs with all of them and build in relative peace. In fact, since no one seemed to be interested in them, I managed to get nearly all of the early SPs.
|
That was killing to me-- I probably lost a bunch of years in the tech race since what exactly were the Hive and Miriam going to trade??
quote:
Originally posted by Minute Mirage
I think the game would have been quite different if you had started on the same continent as the rest of us, Flubber. At least I doubt I would have had the luxury of grabbing all the SPs and attacking when it suited me the best. |
My early game consisted of trying to expand across an arid wasteland and keep from being attacked by the Terrible Two. When I finally met you folks I knew I was in trouble. I didn't like you getting all the SPs but frankly I didn't get crawlers for far too long to compete for them. I grew painfully slowly.
If I were closer, I would have mixed up the diplomacy a bit, thats for sure . .. At a minimum I expect I would have identified you as a threat to everyone earlier and maybe with earlier contact with the PKs, I could have made some trades to make me competitive tech wise
OH and MM, have you ever played the vets map over at CGN? Everyone gets and identical landmass in one of the 4 corners which is quite large and then there is an empty symmetrical landmass in the middle. All land is at least 8 tiles from the nearest other landmass ( unless you do like I did and raise land to join them)-- No pods-- there is not much value to exploration but building is a key and tactics/strategy play a large part as well since that central continent is the only sensible place for anyone to grow
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ka Plewy
Naval battles have always been a problem with the Civ/Smac franchises.
I have a long laundry list, but suffice it to say, a hex/tile based system for navies doesn't work on the strategic level. If we're playing a tactical game, then yes, it can work. |
For sure-- Its gotten to the point where my "navy" is really just for exploration and pod popping. I don't expect to project power with it
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2005 00:52
. It means I'm in error for a very long time... 
|