Attacker / Defender Balance

[jimbob]

I voted that the Attacker has the advantage/imbalanced to favor the attacker... but I don't think that this is a bad thing. This appears to be the way things really are in warfare, the attacker has the advantage of mobility, whereas the defender is left to try and defend all points equally - which means that he/she/it must distribute a limited number of resources across a larger front (see Sun Tsu, French Maginot Line, etc). And so, one could build up a massive "fleet" of starbases over a planet, and you will have (IMHO) an equally powerful force (kT for kT) vs. a mobile fleet - but you can only defend a single planet with it! The advantages of special base mounts and accuracy are perfect - but it's the disadvantage of immobility that matters.

That said, I think some defensive improvements should be made. Not to make defense stronger, but to make certain things useful:

Satelites are USELESS as things stand. I mean honestly, who besides the computer ever uses these things (ok, maybe to drop as sensor buoyes, but that's it). My suggested change is to introduce a fleet formation for satelites - even if all satelites within the sector must be arranged in a single fleet. Now you can leave 'em in a single clump, two clumps, three or more clumps.. maybe even have some in higher orbits relative to the planet...

Mines shouldn't be thought of as a impenetrable wall, but I do agree that they become useless once sufficient numbers of minesweepers are produced. I think that mines need to be overhauled for SEV (should that ever happen).

Now for my rant. If you wanted clear thinking, the best I can offer is above. Everything from this point on is highly subjective if not incoherant:

As for fighters, yeah, they're fairly useless too. High end PDF will wipe them out, they are not upgradeable, and carriers don't carry enough of them. Because you can't change 2 of the 3 complaints above, I think only solution would be to rebalance by decreasing the accuracy of ALL weapons (including PDF) by 30 to 50%. Then all ships, drones and bases should have their to hit value increased by the same amount (ie. now escorts would have a defensive bonus of only 20% instead of 50%). However, satelite and fighter defensive values should not be changed at all. This would make them weak, but more capable of dodging shots/harder to actually hit (seems realistic to me). Because all weapons have a crappy chance to hit, the attack advantage enjoyed by fighters would also become significant... finally making them worthwhile to research and build.

There's my Looney's worth (1.00 $Cdn, .02 USD).

[Taera]

i vote for depends but balanced. This is how i see the game, theoretically a player could build an unbreachable by any means defense, or build a similarly devastating war fleet. It all depends on style, and when neglecting any you might find a thorn in your back when you're not prepared. But then again, the playstyles of this game are so much varied you cannot claim each side has any benefits upon the other one.

[PvK]

I agree that forcing satellites into a stack is lame, unrealistic, silly, and greatly decreases their ability to protect a position. It would be much nicer to be able to surround a planet or warp point with them.

I disagree that satellites are worthless. A stack of them with long-range weapons and defenses can be pretty tough, and can be a useful addition to a defense, especially because they cost zero maintenance and they take up no cargo space when deployed, and they don't require supplies. Of course, two of those advantages don't make sense.

Fighters are also not useless in the late game, although it's true they can be smashed by PDC as well as main weapons, not to mention the ridiculous and wrong ability of ships to ram entire swarms of them to death. Nonetheless, if you deploy a bunch of them with shields and late-game weapons, they can be a reasonable auxiliary weapon when combined with other weapons. They have the advantages of stupid unit stacking mechanics, no maintenance cost, and stacking damage per group. Large fighter swarms with shields can draw a lot of enemy fire, and can wipe out even large enemy ships if they get within range. This makes them useful in warp point defenses, for example, as well as in combined-forces attacks (with drones and seekers, for instance). If you've reached your empire's maintenance threshold, it will only make you stronger to have some fighters. They can also be used to test for minefields, other light duty, and to keep your enemies placing PDC on their ships. They're rarely decisive in the late-game, and are often slaughtered to no effect, but they are zero-maintenance and do have a few uses.

BTW, I won a major fleet battle in a PBW game against a superior empire, which would have been lost if not for my heavy deployment of satellites and fighters in the battle.

PvK

[Grandpa Kim]

Some excellent and thoughtful observations everyone. I agree the attacker has the advantage and I also think that's the way it should be.

That said, the defense needs a few equalizers. For instance, have you ever had a fleet on defensive duty just waiting for the enemy to open a warp point and send a conquest fleet through? And what do they do when the warp opens and the fleet comes through? Why, nothing at all! They sit there oo-ing and ah-ing at the fireworks display supplied by the enemy. ...And they sit there for a month! Doing nothing!

Surely an "intercept intruders" order wouldn't be too much to ask.

Kim