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

From reading the forums and from my own (still very small but growing) experience, there seems to be a few general strategies.

1) Missles
2) Fighters
3) Drones
4) Kamikaze Ships
5) Direct fire ships

My observation is that the first 3 strategies work only if your opponent is not prepared with lots of point defense (possible exception being high tech drones). Since your opponent can retrofit his ships to include a few extra point defense cannons in a turn or two, this means that these strategies will only work *once* before your opponent adjusts and prepares for them.

I have not had much experience with strategy 4), Kamikaze ships, but I don't see the economics of this working very well.

Which means we are left with 5), direct fire, which has no quick counter and is a good general long term strategy.

This is all a large preamble to asking the big question. Is their *anything* which can effectively counter Bezerkers with high (or maxed) aggressiveness or defensiveness? Put another way, if your opponent has high defensiveness/agressiveness and you do not, what strategy can you adopt that is a good long term strategy and not doomed to failure once he retrofits a couple of PD cannons onto his ships? So far I can't think of anything. It seems possible that drones might work and/or kamikaze ships with your presumably better economy because you spent your racial points somewhere else... but this all seems kind of doubtful. This is kind of dissapointing because it means that their really is only once choice in empire design if you don't want to doom yourself to getting mopped up by the first beserker race you face. What am I missing?

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

you are very right in your opinion. Its also my observation and I am playing the SE series since SEII. In the standard game there is a certain lack of different equal effective combat options. A solution would be to introduce "area weapons" and longer ranges than 20 squares for artillery type weapons.

But the good thing is that you can mod the weapon component files. One of the first files I recommend to mod are the PD cannons. Just deleting the to hit modifier of +70% is very effective and makes the seeker/fighter game more interesting.

Another bad thing are the standard mounts. They make emissive armor a bad choice and reduce the options of defending. I deleted them, improved the armor a little bit and the game become better.(because of more defending choices)

tschüß
KlausD

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mostly agree with you.
Anyway, think that win or losse, also will depend of the opponent skills, starting possition, other players involved, etc, etc.

But yes, I think that great part of the game, is decided creating the *.emp file.
About how to play against Berzekers/High-Aggressivenes/High-Defensiveness races, well, you could play well, if doing your empire selected some of:

1) High Agressivenes/High Defensiveness.

2) Berzeker too! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

3) Deeply Religious race, and hurry for the Talisman.

Of course that this options is also good, because you can save points in your Aggressiveness. The problem is that in small maps, not always is easy reach the Talisman before die!

4) Organic Race: the organic ships are more fast to build, cheap to build and cheap to maintan.
- The Seeker parasite is one of the best seekers, but also very cheap.
- The weapon for the fighters is one of the best.
- With the Organic Armor, you can build VERY good and expendable ramming ships (have you ever played against the United Flora???).

5) Temporal race. With the Temporal Predictor III (name?), your systems will get +30% Bonuses.

6) Psychic Race. The system training facilities are very good to train your fleets/ships.

7) Crystallyne Race. With this racial trait, you could get really very good fighters: using the Crystalline Lens III (name?), inside your systems you will get 60 points for every shield of every fighter!
Also, I have used the Crystalline Armor as Ramming weapon (the Tessellate, for example).

Finally, some things could help you to hit enemy ships (or avoid hits from them!).
1) Scattered + Stealth armors are a good thing to include in your ships.

2) Train your Ships/fleets. This thing always works, but of course that your opponent could train their ships too...

3) Boarding ships: because the shields are mostly useless until reach the Phaser-shields, sometimes the players doesn't use shields. I used with success, small boarding ships. Yes, the opponent could use self-destruction devices, but for example, you could destroy a LC with a simple FG.

4) If your direct fire ships can't hit their ships... well, try using Point-Blank tactics. Your ships will be dead meat, but at least you will be able to make some hits, and if you can build more ships than him, then, you could take advantage.

5) Use many many fighters / seekers / drones combined.
Always does exist the hope to overhelm their PDC ships... and your opponent will be forced to spend resources and time building PDC ships.
Please note that for every Big Fighter with 2 shields (120 points), your opponent will need 2 hits with PDC V to destroy it.

6) Yes, use kamikaze ships or Ramming ships. The Organic ramming ships are the best for this, but even ships with scattered armor would work.

7) Use the Neural Net, if you got it inside ruins.

8) Try to create massive fleets. After all, if he spent many points in Aggressiveness/Defensiveness, and you not, you should be able to keep a largest fleet or build ships with a fastest rate.

9) Sometimes, to slow down an offensive and get time to rebuild your fleets, try to ressist in the warp points and kill their support ships (sweepers, repair-ships, resupply ships).

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

I'd be happy to give my 2 cent's worth on this but since I strongly suspect I know the game and Bezerker race that prompted this question I'll get back to you later. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

DavidG (aka Kazarp)

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

So if what you all are saying here is correct:
In the Phun Challenge where
On turn 46 the Phun Phederdation has
The tallisman
Battle Cruisers
PPB V
Spead 7
Stealth Armor
Shields,
PDC V

versus

Light Crusiers
APB 7
Armor III
Speed 10 (using solar sail)

That I should surrender, (not surrendar. Abandon my planets), to save my people the grief of becoming slaves? The way you are painting this I am SOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wait, i think I hear my mommy calling me. bye...

[ May 19, 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

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

M_B, what an excellent post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Depending on your components, the odds can even tip to ~2.5 hits per fighter. PDC V does 65 damage, *2=130 damage. Fighter stack damage does bleed over from one fighter to the next, but you can easily push 150 hitpoints per fighter.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thanks! Considering your great articles about strategy and your prestige, I consider your words an honour!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Depending on your components, the odds can even tip to ~2.5 hits per fighter. PDC V does 65 damage, *2=130 damage. Fighter stack damage does bleed over from one fighter to the next, but you can easily push 150 hitpoints per fighter.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep, you're right!

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

one of the essential problems in standard SEIV is that PD cannons are VERY cheap in tech costs. Its easy to get the 5th level of them in short time, making it one of the standard tactics. Its more costly to get an advanced fighter tech or even better missiles.

(of course no prob to mod this)

Maybe MM should consider to make special target options like fighters only, sats only or drones only. This could help really to add more combat options.

tschüß
KlausD

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

Ganging up on someone because of a cultural choice is approaching gameyness... not to mention starting to get into fuzzy ethical areas. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

Yeah, slaughtering someone because they're Berserkers with maxed offense/defense is a little gamey. Slaughtering someone because they're Berserkers with maxed offense/defense andReligious/Psychic combo is just smart. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

What does "gamey" mean? I'm confused. I thought it was a game.

Some points.

I am under the impression that it is currently considered to be "just smart" to dogpile on anyone who is silly enough to choose deeply religious as a trait so as to eliminate them before they get the talisman. *If* it is determined that bezerkers/maxed defense agressiveness is equally as bad as the talisman, then doesn't that make it "just smart" to try and win agains them any way you can?

Second point. Don't you consider your relative strenghts weaknesses in every diplomatic exchange you make? If one race is stronger than all the other players in the game, then doesn't it make sense that the lesser powers form an alliance against the winning race? Whether they are stronger because they took bezerkers and no one else did, or if they are stronger because all four adjacent systems next to their homeworld contained huge breathable/colonizable planets is immaterial. The lesser powers will unite or die.

Finally. In the particular game being alluded to. The bezerker race was in a strong first place position and forming an alliance to stop them seemed to be the reasonable solution, regardless of whether they were bezerkers or not.

All this brings up another interesting question. Does Space Empires suffer from a "get the leader" problem often seen in the world of multi-player board games where being in first place is often a large disadvantage as it is extremely easy for everyone else to gang up on the leader and stop them. I think that it does in the sense that their are no, or few, mechanisms which stop people from ganging up on the leader. In practice perhaps their is an unspoken social norm among SEIV players not to do this. Perhaps provoking the remarks that using diplomacy as a balancing mechanism against a stronger empire set up is "gamey".

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.

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

Teal... With Seekers, units timing is very important.

This is very important when the player counters with the PD Ships.

Always design your fighters to move with your fleets... Not to speed out and be destroyed before your fleet shows up. This way they will be involved in the fight at the same time your seekers hit and your Main DF Ships come into play.

Practice this tatic with a good trained fleet can work wonders. And they extend the life of the carrier well beyond the Cruiser class counter ships.

Also this will allow you to keep with the carrier / repair ships carrier / minesweeper ships carrier / pd ships carrier / supply ships. Carrier / seeker ships

As All ships should fight.

Now think about combining this with ram ships....

Also.... You should make sure that you understand the difference between fighting on Warp Points vs open space vs planets.

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

For the question of First Place etc...

It is not the score that matters but the number of planets and production levels....

This is the true power of an empire.

And as with most games... IF a player has a huge empire... The smaller empires will combine forces to bring it down a peg or two or destroy it

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some games run with "Show only own score" which hides who is the leader.
Getting people to gang up on someone is much harder then.

The same when you provide only score ranks on the PBW site in the statistics screen and disable all other statistics and in the game has "Show only own score", you can still see who is leading but not by how much or why.

[ May 20, 2003, 16:51: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So then the question is. How do you design your carriers? I find that if you make your carriers so that they carry large numbers of fighters then the carrier will run for the corner and laucnch fighters every turn, spreading the fighters out and making them much easier to deal with. Are you saying that you should design your carriers so that they launch all of their fighters in one turn? That would make sense with combining carrier/minesweeper, carrier/supply, carrier/repair ship, etc.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So then the question is. How do you design your carriers? I find that if you make your carriers so that they carry large numbers of fighters then the carrier will run for the corner and laucnch fighters every turn, spreading the fighters out and making them much easier to deal with. Are you saying that you should design your carriers so that they launch all of their fighters in one turn? That would make sense with combining carrier/minesweeper, carrier/supply, carrier/repair ship, etc.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Add large mounts with beam weapons and give them attack strategy.
That way they will close with the enemy with the same speed as the fighters, so all fighter Groups arrive at the same time, supported by the beams of the carrier.

[ May 20, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

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

You can configure your Strag. on the number of fighters you can launch at once. ( ALl the way up to 50 per launch ( IF you have enough bays to launch that many )

This way you do not have to put a DF mount on every ship ( such as minesweeper carriers )

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

All said is good. However, sometimes you don't fight the enemy in the open (or head on) to beat 'em. Noone has suggested avoiding some fleets then rush to attack their outlying colonies and damage the infrastructure. Just make sure you have a few good W-Platforms.

Many times that puts them in a position of overextending their supplies. You attack and destroy their RD's and SY's on their borders. Ships that run out of supplies are generally easy pickin's http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Also, getting a few outlying systems to riot can cripple their economy.

Many times a good counterstrike can be better than good defense...Just IMO...

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.

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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Another shining example of SEIV's variable gameplay. I tend to go Gas/(Oxy or H2) because I like to go the informational route (lots of Research/Intel); nothing like AST/Gas Giant - Huge/Planetary Info Facility to get the job done. I can see the reason for rock/none in the unmodded game (plenty of places to put Spaceyards) but in a pinch you could always build SY Bases; you can't build Reserach/Intel Bases though (to SJ's lament).

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spoken like someone who always chooses Bezerker... heh

Really, though, the problem with ganging up on everyone who chose Bezerker is that, in a competitive game, that generally means two-thirds of the other players...

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 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey you were #1 when we started! That was 50 turns ago to and you're only down to #2. More evidence to support my point... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.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 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey you were #1 when we started! That was 50 turns ago to and you're only down to #2. More evidence to support my point... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I think I was #2. And I'm #3 now and losing every big battle with minimal losses to the enemy. I think your point was that berzerker combo was virually unstoppable when combined with maxed aggerssive and defensive (which BTW I do not have) When 4 of the 5 top players in the game (the six being way way way Last) gang up on the berzerker the outcome is pretty much a forgone conclusion. (especially when they are in the corner and the berzerker in the middle) Berzerker is not the all powerfull attribute you make it out to be. Cetainly not in a multiplayer game.

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

Personally, TEAL there is nothing more pathetic than a suck. And so far you have lived up the that title very well in this game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ July 23, 2003, 00:51: Message edited by: kingdom ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not exactly. Yes this thread was originally started when I got to thinking about the beserker trait and what *could* be accomplished with it. Which probably had something to do with our game, although I was not specifically thinking about it at the time. You jumped to the not unreasonable conclusion that I was refering to our game and said something about that. I couldn't resist responding with some similar "trash talk". And things veered off from there.

Sure no trait is all powerful in a multiplayer game. My point was that all other things being equal having bezerker with maxed aggressiveness/defense is much better than the alternatives. Things are never equal ("no admiral in his right mind goes out picking a fair fight").

Personally I believe (although I can never know for sure). I would have done exactly the same thing I did in our game if you had any other racial traits/empire set up. You were number 1 in the game and easily walking over your current enemy and seemed to be pursuing a strategy of "divide and conquer" very effectively. One of those four people you were in a long standing war with that started long before I got involved. I actually only approached one other player with a proposal to ally against you (the number one player) and the final player jumped on the bandwagon once they saw the way the wind was blowing. I wasn't going to turn them down....

In short, I think this discussion is getting a little mixed up in the particulars of one game. Which I am happy to discuss. But trying to say anything about Bezerker because of it is a little hard.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your right! I definately suck. How else to explain how I have failed to get very far at all against my enemy for 50 turns despite having what he seems to think are overwhelming advantages?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think this is only true in either a 2 player game or a game that is likely to be short and agressive. In a longer game with more players then I wouldn't pick these stats. Even in a 2 player game I think 125/125 agressive defensive is a little pricey (i usually go 120/120)
I think the berzerker stat is also only really usfull early in the game. later when everyones ships are fully trained with sensors and ECM it has less of an impact. (ie my berzerker status is have little impact of our Last few battles http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

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

Actually I mostly agree with you. Especially for multiplayer games where anything that paints a target on your own forehead must be very carefully considered as I have learned when trying to play a religious race. My views on this issue have changed somewhat over time as I have gained more experience.

I also think that training is way more important than Bezerker. This whole thread started with my questions about other "strategies" remember? As SEIV works now Direct Fire weapons are the only thing that really works well. Bezerker and training are correspondingly quite important (although perhaps not all important). Ramming could work well even unmodded if the ramming targets issue was resolved (it stopped your first advance). But as it is now it is too easily countered by your opponent just putting a non-combat ship that is one hull size bigger than your combat vessels into his fleet. I bet this was never really playtested as the designers probably didn't really think people would use ramming that much.

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

Yup clearly training is extremely important. I would say the reason one empire in our game is virtually gone is due almost entirely to his ships lack of training. He actually had technically superior ships and in several battles even had more ships but got wipped out because my ships were all trained to the max.
I usually consider my ships incomplete untill trained to 20 percent. Of course this becomes hard to maintain as the pressure builds to get ships to the front. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

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

Training is clearly more important than Berzerker, and ECM and Combat Sensors are more important than training...

...except...

players don't have to choose between them - they can get all of them, and they add together linearly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ...

...except...

they can't develop Berzerker, or Aggressiveness/Defensiveness, during play, and except for Racial advantages, all the material bonuses and training eventually level out so everyone has the same thing, which means that the player who took the most racial combat advantages will have an advantage throughout the game, and particularly at the end.

PvK

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah yes but this assumes that the non berzerker player does not take advantage of whatever racial options he took instead. The berzerker may have the advantage at the end in even combat but hopefully the non-bezerker has used his attributes to develop a much larger fleet and a bigger empire.

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

Yes. That'd be true with something like PvK Balance mod in place.

Unfortunately, the unmodded empire costs aren't even close to balanced, and the no-cost culture settings certainly are not. Berzerker's +10 to ship attack and defense is worth I'd say about 1500 points, and its disadvantages come nowhere near correcting that.

The only other culture choice which seems like a competitor for value might be the one that reduces maintenance the most (Engineers), combined with maxing out maintenance reduction.

The unmodded game lets you get pretty darn low maintenance reduction, and pretty darn high combat bonuses, without limiting much else enough that it really matters, even with only 2000 points. With more points, you can max both, and should if it's just a competitive game, which indicates imbalance to me. I guess there is still a choice between Berzerker and Engineer, but by changing the costs, there can be many more interesting and balanced empire choices.

PvK

[ July 24, 2003, 02:44: Message edited by: PvK ]