 |
|  |
 |
|
Fitz
|
 |
& Anarchist
Mar 2000 time: 21:17
|
|
You know, I've rarely found the need, or to be honest about it the ability, to use combined arms tactics before doc:air. In MP LAN I exclusively play directed huge planet, so I always get doc:air way before serious conflicts require redirecting resources from expansion/infrastructure. And against the AI, it's generally enough to make 6 best weapon rovers per base you want to capture and swarm them (huge planet).
The few times I've used an attack force with any infantry or artillery prior to doc:air is on standard or smaller planets, SP, where I have been hemmed in early and thus had a short expansion phase. This means earlier completion of the infrastucture, a keener eye towards military buildup, and most importantly less distance to the enemy.
Planet size and distance to the enemy is what determines the almost exclusive use of rovers to me. It is *cheaper* to make the same number of rovers (and lose more to ECM/counter attacks) if you still succeed in the conquest in half the time (traveling & combat at the far end).
Speed of conquest generally dictates my lack of artillery. If two extra direct attackers means I get the base in 2-3 extra rounds (bombardment time & extra direct kills), I usuall trade that of for survivability too.
The critical question to me is this: Is it more important to harrass the enemy or to keep my forces intact (and keep the base I capture with those intact forces longer than the starve down & disbanding period).
If one (typical on larger planets with more distant opponents) then go with more rovers with less defense to get there faster and do faster damage. If two, use combined arms (offensive, defensive, artillery & probe) or even combined chassis.
Now post doc:air is an entirely different matter to me. By that time, it is all about the opponents skill. Against humans, they start to have really good defenses set up, so you have a no-brainer choice: Lose your single type force to the prepared opponent, or use combined arms tactics. Against the AI, it usually stays a time/benefits issue as before, with the added stipulation that I can afford to pump more minerals into military as time passes, so I can try combined arms just because it is so cool.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drago Sinio
|
 |
New Jersey, USA
Oct 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
Those are valid points. One key thing in favor of a balanced force, is protection of your most powerful attacker, the best weapon infantry guy. He has two advantages, number one being the infantry vs. base bonus and the second being that there is no specific defensive special ability that your enemy can use to defend against him.
The base defenders may have AA to defend against air units, or ECM to defend agains rovers, but against infantry, their special abilities are useless.
So if your enemies armor is about as strong as your weapons, its possible that the infantry is the only choice you have that is strong enough to take out the strongest defenders of your target base.
And if you use ONLY infantry, than the enemy can just build quantity of basic defenders, rather than the more expensive ones. But if you have rovers, infantry, and Air, he doesnt dare do that.
The problem is always getting the infantry within range of the target base, and the combinination of air cover, artillery, and rovers to support them is the best answer to that problem.
I especially love Elite infantry Marines. Two moves, Elite attack bonus, infantry attack bonus, amphibious, and there is no special ability that can be used to defend against them.
I only wish they would put a "Tell it to the Marines" choice in the diplomatic communications.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrdynamic
|
|
Minnesota
Jul 2001 time: 05:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Whatever happened to armored land transport units?
|
Question, If the land transport is attacked and losses, do you lose all your infantry like with sea transports ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
johndmuller
|
 |
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001 time: 00:17
|
|
I think that Artillery is somewhat underrated. It is very versitile in that it is important both offensively and defensively and can also be used very effectively against native life; in fact it can also be used to good effect against ships and even aircraft (with the SAM ability - which, unlike when used on planes, does not come with a corresponding debillitation). It is most damaging when one side has it and the other doesn't - you will note that the AI almost always switches to artillery if you start to bombard it.
IMhO, as a matter of reality, strike aircraft should attack in the fashion of artillery, causing percentage damage rather than to-the-death results, at least when going after units in the open with no AAA in the stack. I think that a/c are somewhat overpowered in the game and that might equalize things a bit. In a base, bombers should be able to damage and/or destroy facilities in addition to, instead of, or after successfully engaging units; perhaps a choice of targets should be offered as in destroying enhancements and sabotage.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drago Sinio
|
 |
New Jersey, USA
Oct 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
Ogie, if the transport holds only one unit, how does the worm "go along for the ride"? Does the transport capacity increase with a fusion reactor? Or are you just using two transports?
I have used these transports in the past - without the drop upgrade- as a defensive booster. I build one per base, plus one rover ber base. The transport can then take the rover out into the trouble spot, effectively giving the rover an extra move. Also usefull for zoc blocking, you can send out the transport with a garrison to hold a specific point in a delaying action while you bring in troops from elsewhere. For example if there are two bunkers , the transport can occupy one, and the garrison the other.
To justify the expense of the unit, I also use it to speed up my terraforming by moving the formers around a bit faster, eliminating as many "non terraforming " turns as possible. Not sure that this is actually more effective than just building a second former, which is probably what a sane person would do, but......
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vitamin j
|
|
Drago, that is a very interesting question... Oh, the possibilities!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yxklyx
|
|
my mind is spinning - What kind of drop transports are you speaking of? What chassis? What's the best chassis for a transport anyway?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yxklyx
|
|
Why not then use Drop Probe Teams instead? They can move the turn they land right? I don't see the advantage of Drop Transports.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drago Sinio
|
 |
New Jersey, USA
Oct 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
My post refers to an infantry chassis- with transport as the "weapon", and then you add armor, and "Drop Pods" as a later upgrade (special ability). I think that is what OO means in his posts, too. In some configurations you can add ECM for free, too, as I recall. A Rover Chassis does not give the second movement point, for some strange reason.
If I am right, from memory, you can build one on a hovertank chassis also, much more costly but gets an extra movement point.
johndmuller, I dont remember the transports using up the passengers move too. Or is that just with drop pods?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drago Sinio
|
 |
New Jersey, USA
Oct 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
These drop pod transports are wierd little dudes. They can enter a seabase from a land square, but only if its your base, not a pactmate's base. I cant figure that one out.
And last night I swear I used one to drop into enemy territory, but I can not get that to work today. And error message pops up , a screen showing little guys dropping from the sky- saying non-combat units can not drop into enemy territory or zones of control.
Any way they are fun little guys. I was using a level 5 armor/ecm and commondo morale. Strong enough to survive any attack up to fusion weapons if its in good defensive terrain. The fusion troops destroyed the transport, but were reduced to "red" status in the battle. If they attacked at less than full strength- the fusion troops lost to the transport.
Another odd thing is that the troops that were in the transport dont take any damage when the transport is destroyed.
I had three transports loaded with elite unarmored shard tanks, dropped the transports in just at the edge of my territory, three squares from the target base. Then the next turn the transports advanced right up to the base, and the shard tanks each fired four times. It was one of those AI bases with about twenty defenders. When the remaining base defenders attacked on the next turn, they were defeated by the transports, because they had been reduced in strength by my artillery, also in a transport , two squares from the base. The shard tanks took the base on the next turn.
I had also placed two more transports on rocky squares in the enemy territory along our common border to mess with the enemies abilility to reinforce the base.
I also had a former build a sensor while stacked with a transport for protection.
With a fusion reactor and level 5 armor the cost is 30 minerals for the transport. ECM is free-Drop pods raise the cost to 50.
You can get an extra movement point by building on a hovertank chassis- that cost 60 mins with level 5 armor and ecm or 90 mins if you add drop pods instead of ECM. Cost goes over 100 if you add 2 specials.
So , if you have the Social Engineering to build Elite Units, you can get a well protected 2 movement point transport unit for 30 Mins. , the same as an ECM garrison unit. Seems like a very versatile unit for the cost.
Note that you cannot built them "trained" or get a monolith upgrade.
Last edited by Drago Sinio on 17-01-2002 at 21:36
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|