 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
NorthSwordsman
|
|
Another theory is that it sees Formers as a more potent "weapon" than a military unit. Let me explain what I mean.
A military unit, in the overall scheme of things, only plays a very small role. It cannot really change the "fortunes" of a faction except in groups, It's only purpose is to attack the enemy and defend against the same.
On the other hand, a Former has far more multiple uses than a military unit would. 1 Former, just 1, can change a base from a weak producing location to an industrial powerhouse simply by terraforming.
Here is an another use of a former: suppose that two factions are separated by a narrow (1 square) channel of water. To be able to land units on the other side, you either need a transport or a drop unit (which carries a -50% penalty if it attacks on the same turn as airdropping, forcing you to wait- that gives the other side a chance to toast it before it is even capable of moving). A transport carrying 4 units can be wasted, thus losing 5 units total. All that industrial might totally wasted.
If you use a former to raise land between the two factions, you can transfer units quicker and more safely than using a transport or without turn movement penalties with a drop unit.
Not to mention, the Former has numerous capabilities- bunkers, airfields, sensors, etc. I think that a former has a higher value overall than a military unit would, not to mention, not as well defended.
To me, it makes sense that a former would be the first to be toasted. Hurt the other side's capability to produce, you stand a better chance of winning.
World War II proved that with the constant bombing of Germany in the latter part of the war. The Germans couldn't produce much material, which hurt their strength. Of course, they had other weaknesses that hurt them more, but this was a basic example. The same principle applied to England during the same time. If the USA had been bombed like Germany was, I doubt we could have produced much either.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000 time: 17:14
|
|
Doesn't change the fact that it is uneconomical to destroy formers, unless you use choppers or very cheap needlejets. The AI uses neither, happily sacrificing 6r fission noodles on vanilla formers.
Well, I had nothing better to do other than sleep so I ran a quick test on the preferences of the Yangish penetrator, I put a yang base, and a dee base a few tiles apart, then spread a tempting collection of units for a hive penetrator to take it's pick of, in each case I put about 6 units out, and genned turns noting which targets it picked off each turn.
Formers / Crawlers
No preference
Formers / Clean Drop Hover Formers
No preference
Scout Tank, String Tank
No preference
30-12-1's , 30-10-1's
Attacked the 30-10-1's first 
30-12-1's, 20-12-1's
Attacked the 20-12-1's first
So.... either choice of target is random, or "worse choice", or somewhere in beteen (I can see no logic behind NOT killing hover-formers before vanilla formers, or NOT killing unarmoured string hovertanks before unarmoured scout hovertanks)
I asked the penetrator pilot why he chose the targets he did, and he relpied "ugh, dunno". So there you have it, the AI has no grand plan to grind your industry to a halt, it's just plain stupid!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tokamak
|
|
If you're just harrassing an opponent, then sniping at his formers and crawlers is probably your best bet. However, if you're mounting a serious campaign, targetting milatary units is far more important. Who cares about the long term benefits of a former if you're just going to take his base in a few turns, anyway?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|