.com.unity Forums - Torpedo question

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Torpedo question (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=10729)

Re: Torpedo question

I am on the PvK side. After all. his mod is better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Hey, hey, just kidding !!! Oleg goes under cover. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Torpedo question

Fryon wrote:

Quote:

Regardless of your extreme nit-picking over semantics, my arguments are still valid.

Naturally. I wasn't denying the validity of most of your arguments, as far as they go. I was pointing out the exaggeration of some of your assertions in some of your one-liner emails, and some conclusions about the uselessness of some techniques.

I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you what points I was and wasn't trying to make. I don't think we actually disagree on much here, except for what the likely situations are, and therefore which decisions make sense, and which techniques are useful, in unmodded play. I think our play experiences have been a bit different, from our different play styles, and the different games we've been in.

There might be a few disagreements about details of the effects of Max Range/DGH tactic, but I'd just be repeating myself, or bringing up more play examples, so I don't see much point in doing that. I don't intend any offense, but one and/or both of us have been failing to follow the other's line of thinking when making counter-arguments on some points.

Fryon wrote:

Quote:

It is rather rude to talk about someone in the third person when they are "present", you know.

Not if one isn't addressing that person. I had no intention of being rude. When I referred to you in the third person, I was responding to Maerlyn's post:

Maerlyn wrote:

Quote:

...
if you ask me: its 2:2 until now, but both of you should try to stick to the assumptions made in the beginning and not bring in possible additional weapons or other components in order to strenghten your arguments. (as both of you did)

PvK

Re: Torpedo question

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif His mod is just playable SP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

SP is all what I enjoy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , and I don't like multiplayer - put your definiton here about the concept of play before your inuendo !

Re: Torpedo question

Gee, I prefer Proportions MP to Proportions SP, myself.

PvK

Re: Torpedo question

I wish I would have gotten into this discussion when it was started. In one of my current games, a race is using Torpedo class ships with APB's. His fleet is set to Max range attacks and thus far he has been very successful with these tactics.

When used correctly Torpedo heavy fleets can be most effective.

Re: Torpedo question

PkV wrote:

Quote:

Naturally. I wasn't denying the validity of most of your arguments, as far as they go. I was pointing out the exaggeration of some of your assertions in some of your one-liner emails, and some conclusions about the uselessness of some techniques.

One-liner emails? Of course if you take single sentences out of context they tend to transmit a vastly different meaning than they had originally... I was not exaggerating anywhere.

Quote:

I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you what points I was and wasn't trying to make. I don't think we actually disagree on much here, except for what the likely situations are, and therefore which decisions make sense, and which techniques are useful, in unmodded play. I think our play experiences have been a bit different, from our different play styles, and the different games we've been in.

I see.

Quote:

I don't intend any offense, but one and/or both of us have been failing to follow the other's line of thinking when making counter-arguments on some points.

I don't really see that, unless you want to say that the line of thinking differs from the content of the Posts... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Quote:

Not if one isn't addressing that person. I had no intention of being rude. When I referred to you in the third person, I was responding to Maerlyn's post:

Which is a problem, as a forum thread is more akin to a big conversation with everyone in the room than separate converastions in different places (when the discussion remains on the same topic, of course)...

Re: Torpedo question

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One-liner emails? Of course if you take single sentences out of context they tend to transmit a vastly different meaning than they had originally... I was not exaggerating anywhere.

I meant one-liner Posts. And looking back, I see only one of them was literally a one-liner post. These were the assertions I was referring to originally, and these were the points I was trying to stick to in each part of the discussion.

At first I thought you meant to exaggerate, but now it sounds like you maintain them to be true, within your doctrine, where you assume certain situations and game style choices are the way to go. Apparently this includes expressions like "extremely inefficient" to mean "have disadvantages that make me usually not want to use them, because I don't expect their strengths to come into play". Any misunderstandings others might have about this, they have to pry out of you with lengthy arguments.

I don't know of a way to link to a specific post, but below is the text of the email which I thought defined the topic.

I wrote:

Quote:

Sorry Wardad. I was just exaggerating and teasing Fryon about his exaggerated teases. Staying on topic, I'd say Fryon was either wrong or exaggerating or incomplete about such things as:

"... Baseships, which are extremely innefficient..."
- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".

"That [Taera: "PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned."] only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways."
- These are exaggerations. Max range with ships that need to reload will tend to improve their effect and survivability, unless there are so many ships that they can't actually move backwards. Also, even in huge/dense ship battles, there are still a significant number of ships which don't get blown up in a single turn.

In reply to Ed Kolis:
"Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range...

Of course that wouldn't work when the enemy has faster engines, but then for assaults against satellites, bases, and planets... "

Fryon quipped:
"It also does not work very well when the enemy goes the same speed as you either."
- Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading.

Now, I'm not asserting that such tactics are enough to tip the scales set by the rather lame torp stats versus the rather good APB XII stats in the unmodded game, but they do have positive effects in many situations.

It was clear to me from Fryon's winking smilies (" ") that he was teasing and exaggerating, but I thought maybe some newer players might get the wrong idea.

PvK

Looking back at that, I think it still summarizes my position on each point. All your (Fryon's) statements which I quoted are based on valid observations, but are over-statements of them, or at least represent a specific doctrine rather than being valid general statements.

PvK

Re: Torpedo question

Quote:

At first I thought you meant to exaggerate, but now it sounds like you maintain them to be true, within your doctrine, where you assume certain situations and game style choices are the way to go. Apparently this includes expressions like "extremely inefficient" to mean "have disadvantages that make me usually not want to use them, because I don't expect their strengths to come into play". Any misunderstandings others might have about this, they have to pry out of you with lengthy arguments.

Again, refer to the post about the phrase "extremely inefficient"... I already said it was not the best term to use there. It was not lengthy, it was a single sentence! And it was several Posts ago, yet you are still hung up on that single phrase. And, of course, taken in context in the original post that term was used in, it is not quite as extreme as you are making it out to be.

My "doctrine" is just the mechanics of SE4. nothing special. "Certain situations" are the most common ones given late game, where APB XII and QT V (as well as baseships) come into play. Huge fleets are the rule of thumb; those that split their fleets into many small squadrons tend to get overrun by those grouping their ships into big fleets. Unless, of course, you play high tech start, which is a whole different beast.

Note:
These are Posts, not emails.

[ November 18, 2003, 01:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Torpedo question

Well if you like dismissive exaggerations:

Perhaps you had more repetitive play experiences in your unmodded SE4 MP game sessions than I did, featuring everyone waiting to have thousands of ships with APB XII before starting any wars.

PvK