"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[Zarix]

I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.

[geoschmo]

Equating Se4 to Rock/paper/scissors is a compliment for Se4, not a criticism. It demonstrates that every strategy you could choose in SE4 will beat some strategy, and lose to some other strategy. There is no perfect strategy.

It's a good analogy and is particularly appropriate for a discussion about balance in the game.

Of course Se4 has a multitude of strategies and techs to choose from, and RPS only has three. But it's an analogy. It's finding a common point between two things that appear different and using their commonality to demonstrate a particular point. Nobody is trying to say they are the same game, or should be.

For me this discussion about balance always ends up being a disagreement over semantics. I think different people have different things in mind when they say balance. Because to me balancing SE4 would mean that you could choose any weapon and have a chance of beating any other weapon in a straight up fight. I don't think that is something we should strive for. If balance means something other than that to you, then we may not be disagreeing, even though we think we are cause one of us wants balance and the other doesn't.

Weapons have strengths and wealnesses in different areas that make a damage per KT comparison difficult at best, and meaningless at worst. Cost to research and cost to construct and maintain particularly.

So weapon A can't beat weapon B in a straight up fight, but it can beat C. And C loses to A, but it beats B. Rock/Paper/Scissors.

But most of the differences in weapons don't even have to do with that tiny example. It isn't about beating some opponent in a straight up fight. It's about using your weapons choices advantages to put your self in a posiiotn where you aren't in a straigh up fight. Cause you have more ships than he does in a particular place.

Victroy doesn't go to who has the better ships. Victory goes to whichever one destroys all the other guys ships first, by whatever means nessecary.

Geoschmo

[ December 26, 2002, 12:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

Thank you for repeating my point.

I aim to please!

"If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)"

This would depend on how often your opponent uses plague bombs! (or how high your random events are) Mechanoids is a very specialized trait.

It's not useless, by any means, but it is not as good as any of the Big Four (Adv. Storage, HI, Propulsion, Ancient Race). If it was cheaper - say 500 points - then it would see more use (but still not be ubiquitous)

"Repair vs Maint Reduction"

The only issue here is the weakness of armor in the standard game, combined with the lethality of fleet vs fleet action. In other words you don't often have much to repair! (see minerals vs organics..). Repair is MUCH less expensive than maintance reduction.

Repair is not cheap enough, given the issues you list above. Maint Reduction is only really expensive above 110%. +10% (500 pts) of Maint Reduction is very much more valuable than +20% repair (500pts).

"Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs."

Torps, at max:
1.25 damage/ton/turn
DUC V:
1.33 damage/ton/turn

Torps have the first-strike advantage, DUCs have a better damage over time (slightly). DUCs are cheaper to research since it requires half as many levels to get there (the initial mil sci is irrelevent because 99/100 you want that anyway). Torps have a longer range with no damage falloff. Neither has a to-hit bonus.

Cost is about the same, per ton, with the torps costing more radiactives.

Phoenix-D

So why would you take Torps over DUCs? They cost more to research, do less damage, and are more expensive. The increase in range is too slight, and setting Torp Ships to Max Range is probably a recipe for disaster. Give those puppies a bonus to hit or increase their range or make them cheaper. Something. They are almost a redundant tech.

Now, compare torps to PPBs. Thank you.

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Equating Se4 to Rock/paper/scissors is a compliment for Se4, not a criticism. It demonstrates that every strategy you could choose in SE4 will beat some strategy, and lose to some other strategy. There is no perfect strategy.

I agree. Calling it Rock/Paper/Scissors isn't supposed to imply that it removes all strategy, but that all strategies are valid and can be countered.

Balancing the game, in my opinion, just gives you more valid strategies to choose from.

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Actually I am not particularly in love with the PPB. I rarely if ever use them. So few people use standard shields because of the threat of PPB's that they have lost their real edge IMHO. Typically I will research DUCs to the limit and then switch over to APB's. Although that's simply habit. There are others that work just fine.

This leaves you vulnerable to mid-game attacks. The amount of research you save by not getting PPBs is trivial, and your opponent can use Shield V's to great effect.
If you aren't putting shields on your ships, you are even in bigger trouble, as you make yourself vulnerable to ship capture and engine destroyers.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Zarix:
I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.

No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous. The only time it might not help is if you get rushed. But that is pretty rare, since rushing tends to hurt the rusher...
Everyone should take Maint Reduction to 110%. And you can't attack everyone you see on sight.

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.

I disagree. Balance doesn't take away strategic options, it gives you more. What you want are tactics that are good in situation 'X', but not so good in 'Y'.

[ December 26, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: spoon ]

[Phoenix-D]

"No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous."

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.

Phoenix-D