Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

I for one never relies on RD's (Not RDouglass but Resupply Depots!).
Every fleet and essentially all ships I make are capable of self sustaining supplies.
With 2 solar panels they can stop for a few turns and refuel, those trinary systems loads supplies fast.

WP's aren't all that efficient imo, they can't train and so can't get that extra edge.
A decent fleet wipes them out without major problems.

The best strategy is to beat the enemy fleets head on, defeat them without losses and at the same time glass their colonies, i e major owerpower in tech, numbers, tonnage and experiance.
I think that sums it up pretty well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 20, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

MB: Thanks. That was indeed an excellent post. Some of the things you mentioned will be tested very shortly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Speaking of which:

DavidG: What *are* you talking about... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I would never use something that you told me against you. The Yankee Confederacy is a highly honorable race. At least that's what the majority of the middle class believes, the elites of course do whatever it takes to try and attain galactic domination and there is also the issue of the hidden slave class which provides all the wealth for the middle and upper classes. But seriously, this brings up one other option for dealing with a bezerker race, namely diplomacy. If you can get everyone to gang up on the Bezerker race then their ships which you can't hit suddenly start looking a lot less scary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

Yes Ruatha, I agree on the practice of including solar panels. However, the flaw comes in to play once some significant battles take place. A coupla' solar panels per ship is not going to keep a fleet supplied when it's in enemy territory using lots of supplies putting down the waves of little ships being thrown at them.

Now the tactic of overwhelming the enemy becomes much more viable IMO. Weaponry uses a lot more supplies when its being fired (Well, of course you say...). Sure, if you leave the fleets alone, they'll be just fine, but who's going to let THAT happen?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

And WP's really show there weight early game... And can be a pain in the later game stages... Due to the mounts...

Cause taking out a few ships each combat will force the enemy to keep his fleet large and together. And may even destroy a small fleet..

Try attacking a planet with 10 LWP's with the mount and APB 12 , Shield Depleter

They will take out a few ships, maybe if your lucky one ship will be damaged so the movement of the fleet is set to zero

Anything to slow the enemy down and weaken him is good in my books.....

Just something to think about.

[ May 21, 2003, 20:50: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What the heck is a DF mount?

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Direct Fire.

Thanks for the suggestions guys. There is another thing that you can do with weapon platforms (assuming that they can hit, and they do get some bonuses to hit, so its not completely hopeless). But I'm not going to post it just yet in case the enemy learns of our plans... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is game, but it's a roleplay game which means pretending it's not a game... you see?

No, neither do I.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point of a game is to have fun, not to win at any cost. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As you have no doubt figured out now it is actually quite easy to do this. Simply get 4 of the 5 highest ranked players in a 6 player game to gang up on the #2 ranked berzerker. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

lemme explain the gamey part because i am one of those who dont like it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
that means that you discover the best combo and everyone plays it. that includes min/maxing. while it makes a good thing for short games, for large games, when you have 8 players with all races the same (none, rock; optimally min/maxed; all going for PPB/NSP ASAP etc) the game simply becomes... not as fun, i think.

Re: Question about general strategy: missles vs. fighters vs. drones vs. direct fire, etc
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is nothing 'gamey' at all about choosing the best possible race style IMO. I suspect you'll get a lot of people who disagree with what you consider the best race anyway. I for example have never picked "none,rock" and actually have not seen a lot of players pick this.