Stellar Manipulation

[Argh]

Well, I have a Q for y'all. . .

Why would you *not* constantly destroy suns, past midgame? How can it not be to your advantage to constantly deny your opponants room to grow, whilst using warp point tech. to prevent them from being able to enter your systems through any but the longest routes?

Anyhow, just a thought. . . I did this to the AI and it totally fell apart. . . it hit its max pop., couldn't get to me except through choke points, and my own warp points reached far behind the lines of the next opponent, until we reached the "edge" of the galaxy, whereupon I had a huge advantage in tech and gear. Is there any reason you more experienced players wouldn't do this?

[ 28 December 2001: Message edited by: Argh ]

[Dracus]

I peronsally like to try and capture enemy planets, the only time I use the sun distroyer is in a roll play were I have a rogue ship. To me the sun distroyer is like nukes (IRL).

[Gryphin]

Argh,
Please see my post under the War and Peace thread. Overall your strategy looks like it is a win every time. I personaly enjoy games where the chance of losing is greater. I enjoy both the challenge and the surprise. I guess it is a matter of "Play Style". Even though it is a bunch of ones and zeros, I still have qualms about destroying sentiant beings. I realise this is a unusual position, but then, no one ever insulted me by saying I was "normal" * wry grin *

[geoschmo]

Against other human players this strategy only works to a point. Distance and supply isn't a huge problem for most human players once they understand the technique of fleeting with supply ships. And once Quantum Reactors are researched supply really isn't a problem at all.

Blowing up an opponents star system can be devastating sure, but given a large enough empire it's not a death sentance.

Star destoyers take a long time to build and a huge amount of resources to maintain. By the time you have them researched and built your opponent should be ahead of you in ships since you are spending a lot more on fewer ships.

Once you use it once they are going to protect their stars, so you have to knock them out very quickly. This requires a lot of star destroyers at the same time. And while you are setting this up you are vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike.

To do this against a human, it almost has to be a complete suprise, and you have to wipe out most of their systems in the first volley. Not easy to pull off.

Plus, it's not as fun as methodically taking planets one-by one from an opponent. Planning straetgy and counter-strategy. Fleets battles and what not.

Of course that Last point is purely my opinion.

Geoschmo

[rdouglass]

To Argh:

Try playing with all warp points connected and no stellar manip (no more star destroyers or popping into the center of the AI empire with 50+ ships). It does seem to put the AI more on a level playing field - try it, you may like it....

[zen.]

I forget which game I played in the past where if someone used certain weapons (...was it nukes in Civ?), a diplomatic penalty occurred with all the other empires. I think Alpha Centauri did something similar with treaties...if you attacked someone without declaring war, everyone else gets displeased too.

You can probably see the point I'm getting to with Stellar Manipulations.

Oh, and to answer the first poster: I don't utilize that strategy because I follow a 'Geneva Conventions' kind of idea -- if the computer doesn't/can't use such weapons against me, I won't either.

zen

[Argh]

Actually, here's how I used the strat: I blew up every system that was currently weakly inhabited or "buffer" systems that I could control temporarily. . . I didn't use it as an instant death-blow precisely because I figured this would be useless for PBW. As a very new player(I just got this *and* TWE for Christmas) I've been searching for the same techniques that were so useful in MOOII- optimization strategies.

Blowing the suns of "buffer" systems means that you *always* get a serious advance warning that your opponants are mounting a counter-attack, as even the fastest ships in un-modded SE:IV cannot cross from one warp point to another without being detected, if not intercepted and destroyed

This is not an inconsiderable advantage when fighting an extended war- plus, as you take systems that aren't particularily nice. . . you can destroy them, too, and thus rid yourself of a system you can't afford to adequately defend and leave future opponants with an even longer rush distance. . .

So it's not about supplies. . . which quite frankly, I've never run out of, even in extended campaigns. . . it's about creating distance, denying resources/future gains, and denying your opponants the ability to surprise you while you continue to optimize your tech.

Needless to say, this ain't a "rush" strat. It takes a certain amount of both luck and pre-planning your tech tree to a high degree.

[Argh]

Oh and as for being "fair" to the AI. . . hehe, I'm planning to play humans, which are the only decent opponants I'm likely to find. The AI's reaction is too clumsy to really tell me how this is going to work when I deploy it against humans in PBW

And on the topic of diplomatic relations. . . well MOOII had a severe negative diplomatic penalty for using biological warfare. . . personally, I found it ridiculous that you could use Stellar Converters to slag every planet(but one) in a system, kill every living soul on the Last one, and reprocess the resulting asteroid rings into much better planets. . . with no diplomatic penalties, other than making the defeated empire even more angry.

At the very least, it'd be nice if SE:IV/G would at least INFORM players when a solar system has been. . . heh. . . radically altered. That should be shot heard 'round the galaxy, unless your Empire is composed of people with very heavy sacks over their heads

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Argh:
[QB]<snip>... here's how I used the strat: I blew up every system that was currently weakly inhabited or "buffer" systems that I could control temporarily. . <snip>....Blowing the suns of "buffer" systems means that you *always* get a serious advance warning that your opponants are mounting a counter-attack, as even the fastest ships in un-modded SE:IV cannot cross from one warp point to another without being detected..<snip>.This is not an inconsiderable advantage when fighting an extended war- plus, as you take systems that aren't particularily nice. . . you can destroy them, too, and thus rid yourself of a system you can't afford to adequately defend and leave future opponants with an even longer rush distance. . <snip>.. it's about creating distance, denying resources/future gains, and denying your opponants the ability to surprise you while you continue to optimize your tech. ...<snip>

---

It's a valid strategy I suppose. IMHO the same thing could be accomplished in a much more conventional way. Taking colonies from your opponent in these border systems, planting your own if needed. Planets in border systems do a fine job of giving advance warning, with the added advantage of giving a positive cash flow, however slight. After you blow up a system you have to keep ships on hand to be able to give you any warning. Ships that cost resources to maintain.

These border systems don't have to be heavily defended. A few ships or some troops just to keep the population happy. They will go to work busily producing resources for your empire that can be used to beef up your core systems.

But when it comes down to it its just a differance of play style. Either way works. You will find though that when you start blowing up systems the other players in the game will tend to join together out of self-preservation. Just human nature. But if you get a kick out of being the bad guys, go for it.

Geoschmo

[Argh]

You're probably right Geoschmo. . . players would probably gang up on me, *if* they catch it happening soon enough. That depends on who's communicating with whom, of course. . . and whether or not the blame for the solar eruption is pinned on *me* After all, if I start with this in systems that are being conflicted by other parties, for example, or other people's border zones. . . it'll just seem like WWIII started, and maybe everybody will get in the mood.

If I don't have the resources and economy for a protacted war at midgame(and I haven't found a convenient way to "rush" this tech without being painfully vulnerable otherwise), then I deserved to lose anyhow, as at that point(from what I've been able to gather about PBW games anyhow) the AIs are usually all toast and it's up to the players as to who gets the axe first.

Of course, if I can find an ally to watch my back. . . then kitty bar the door, as thus far this has proven a rather radical monkey-wrench. I'm not sure this means that I'm a "bad" guy. . . just efficient. The game is, after all, essentially about accounting(optimization) and relationships with other players adds another random factor to the mix.