Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
| Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Thu, 04 March 2004 23:41  |
|
 Inquisitor80 |
 | Warrant Officer |
Messages: 115
Registered: February 2004
Location: The dark places in betwee... | |
|
OK i guess but where does the second B come from?
As far as i can see BBs are not very efficient.
They are only gateable by IT and take way to much minerals.
it would seem that a lot of cruisers would be better than a few BBs
- Inquisitor80
___________________________________
We must move forwards not backwards, upwards not forwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Maybe i am a little thick but... |
Thu, 04 March 2004 23:59  |
|
|
|
| Inquisitor80 wrote on Thu, 04 March 2004 23:41 |
OK i guess but where does the second B come from?
As far as i can see BBs are not very efficient.
They are only gateable by IT and take way to much minerals.
it would seem that a lot of cruisers would be better than a few BBs
|
Beam armed BBs can be gated within reason - just don't put armor on them. (Which is also generally not a good idea since battle speed is important for beamers.) If you locate a good over-gating calculator look at the damage from overgating ships of 400kt or less through a 300/500 gate. Yes, there will be losses, but they could be considered acceptable losses in order to get a fleet somewhere quickly. Especially if a turn can be spent on the far side repairing at a station.
General downfall of the CA (cruiser) verses the BB (battleship) is that the CA hull does not contain enough slots to allow for a ship to a sufficient combination of offensive and defensive aids compared to a battleship. The Battleship hull also starts with a base initiative of 10 compared to a cruiser hull's base initiative of 5; i.e. the battleship will just about always shoot first.
And, you also don't deploy a "few" BBs. You deploy them in groups effective enough to handle what your opponents have in the area. So, you can lose to "lots" of cruisers, but on a basis of roughly equal mineral or resource spending a battleship group is often superior. (And ideally you are *not* fighting at all unless you have combat superiority - attrition battles are generally not good for either race if there are others waiting in the wings to pick off the crippled survivor.) 
If you're really interested in testing then you could build a testbed, or find one of the existing max tech testbeds, and build some CA and BB groups using either equal amounts of minerals or equal amounts of resources and see what sort of results you get. You can probably find sample designs just by asking or poking around a little further.
Gatable missile cruisers can look *real* attractive. However, since they are very limited in being able to carry both jamming and computers they are very attractive targets for enemy missiles and quite often get eaten like popcorn in late-game engagements. (Yes, you can use chaff, but chaff has an annoying tendancy to die in Round 2 of battle - followed by the cruisers going down immediately afterwards.)
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Maybe i am a little thick but... |
Fri, 05 March 2004 08:28 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Inquisitor80 wrote on Fri, 05 March 2004 06:59 |
So if i understand what you are saying is that pound for pound a BB is better. hmm. Can you suggest a design?
|
BB, best shields, no armor, best beams in "4/6" slots (at least range 2), sappers or beams in "2" slots, 6 capacitors, 1 computer/man-jet/capacitor in general slot.
| Quote: |
... sometimes they choose the time of a battle not me.
|
But you can chose what you'll have in battle (if anything). Denying the battle until you have a chance to win is quite an usual tactic. You pay with destroyed planets, he pays with destroyed fleet. You get the salvage. Very important in late game.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Tue, 16 March 2004 14:52 |
|
|
|
As you plan ship designs it is wise to learn your opponents designs if possible before building your counter. You can build cruisers that can kill BB's but your design will be obsolete fairly quickly. You must also test it so you know how many of a given type of cruiser you will need to kill the BB's you want to go after.
Plan carefully what you build, decide whether you need the first shot advantage to kill opponents ships then make sure you get it if you need it. If you don't have enough tech you will simply die a slow death so try to make sure you advance in at least one critical field over your enemy.
There is NO substitute for using a testbed so, if you don't have one, get one. No ship designer in his right mind wouldn't simulate performance before comitting to construction. You can mail me and I'll send you a zip of a complete testbed if you don't find one.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Tue, 16 March 2004 14:53]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Tue, 16 March 2004 22:36 |
|
|
|
| Inquisitor80 wrote on Thu, 04 March 2004 21:41 |
OK i guess but where does the second B come from?
As far as i can see BBs are not very efficient.
They are only gateable by IT and take way to much minerals.
it would seem that a lot of cruisers would be better than a few BBs
|
The amount of minerals a design takes is more a matter of the details than it is Battleship vs Cruiser. I was building horde style mineral lean battleships.
Cruisers will tend to lose the init war to a battleship. If you have lost the init war, you may wish to look at destroyers depending on your tech levels and race settings and the roll of the beamer in question.
Or even wierder, frigates...
The whole horde idea is to have some sort of tech behind fleet of ideally one set of beamers and use the shear mass of overwhelming shields and armour to survive till you get your blow. Tech behind can mean very mineral lean.
Of course nubs are the cheapest armour hull. But pre-nub, destroyers can be the best after miniturization (depending on your settings and tech levels).
And frigates... have a way of laughing at those expensive missiles that can only destroy one ship per blow. Frigates offer the best super shield horde (which of course will be countered with sappers. But you then counter with sapper killer battleships, and your frigates are nice secondary missile chaff).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 12:59 |
|
|
|
Destroyers have one general purpose slot. You can stick a shield on it. You end up with a similar shield to armour ratio as cruisers and battleships counting the same shield tech levels.
RS is liked because armour is expensive and heavy (so often not used). Hordes tend to use lots of different ships with not all slots filled or filled with cheap stuff to increase the effective armour/cost.
I count 3 destroyers as close to the value of a cruiser and 3 cruisers to a battleship. Lighter ships lose init and bonus slot usefulness but gain in last move and gatableness and sometimes cost plus they split into smaller fleets.
Lighter ships allow you to battle range 3 weapons with cheaper and higher init range 2 ones. Also, range 2 cruisers get made fools of by range 3 destroyers that can stay out of range.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 16:05 |
|
|
|
"BTW a BET race should be carefull when I field AMP Nubs."
Nub=cheapest armour, we are talking pre-nub.
BET isn't so bad in the nub era... Sure the nub hull is double but lots of the toys that go in it cost less. These things have a way of influencing designs and balancing out.
A BET who plays horde cheap ships pre-nub, may go for more expensive toys in his more expensive nub hull to counter the suddenly nub horde opponents.
If you weren't my friend, I obviously wouldn't want you to live long enough to have nubs.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 16:28 |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
Other than the large weapon slots (important with missiles), the high base armor, large number of armor slots, large number of shield slots, much higher base init and - oh yeah, let's not forget how much fuel those battleships carry, there is one undeniable multiplier. That of elec slots. Destroyers have 1 elec, 1 mech, and 1 shared. Cruisers have up to 4 such slots - but only 1 more shield than destroyers when used in that configuration. Battleships have *6* elec slots plus a mech (which is usually best used on a computer if a missile ship, an overthruster if a beamer).
Basically it comes down to this: EVEN IF weapons tech is severely limited, the BB's intrinsic abilities cause it to still be your best firepower for whatever currency you choose to use (be it ironium, boranium, germanium, resources, whatever).
1) High init - you'll shoot first, unless they waste slots on computers.
2) More elec slots. You can be assured of shooting first should you choose to. Should you choose not to, you have more flexibility concerning your missile defenses or beamer offensive effectiveness. You can multiply your beams by a hefty 1.77 times for pennies with capacitors.
3) High base armor and large armor slots - you can withstand more missile fire without suffering losses through shields - and when you do take losses, less of your launchers will be knocked out. For an extreme example of this, send a group of Arm cruisers up against Arm BB's. With massed numbers you can win, but you'll still lose half your fleet...if you're lucky. If you're not, that entire fleet will be scrap.
Let me give a concrete example then, directly from a game - Trench Warfare. Interesting weapons tech limitations (13 max), BET required, slow tech checked.
The Carthaginians had created a veritable Barbarian Horde from Hell:
539 shielded bazooka destroyers
243 shielded sapper frigates
(plus various supporting ships pushing the total ship count to nearly 1000)
I countered with 50 VF-1A's:
Battleship, 16 colloidals, 4 sappers, 6 caps, 5 slabs of armor, full shields, warp 8 engine and a thruster. Dangerously heavy, and slow. But, could take a large beating and keep on coming...
I should note that neither of us had RS. I think. I didn't feel like calculating out everything...and I know I didn't have RS.
In 10 rounds of battle I suffered the loss of 2 of my battleships and 9% damage to the remainder of my stack. He lost everything he brought to the battle - and somewhere around that time lost his empire to massed packet attacks by another race.
Note - these were the BEST conditions under which to field a horde of lower tech ships of the type you're suggesting. Weapons tech was artifically limited to equal the other defensive techs (limited to tech 13). Yet when the lighter ships were employed, it was *strictly* as a counterdesign to the heavier ships (range 1 BCs to counter my heavy range 3 beamers, which I countered with range 0 cruisers, ad nauseum).
Unless used to fulfill a specific role - sweeping, light skirmishing, specific counterdesign, gatability due to extreme range gating [say, one of X's stretched-beyond-huge games], the higher tech hull *will* win. Go fight a straight up slugfest versus a WM with DNs when you have BBs to see this. If you want to see just how bad it is, look at what it would take to knock down a well balanced fleet of dreadnaughts with frigates, destroyers, cruisers...even with battleships you'll still take horrendous losses unless you have a large economic advantage such that you can survive his best punch and then knock his fleet out in one blow. Then see what a fleet of nubians can do to trash that fleet of DNs when given equal resource inputs. For some *real* entertainment, see what they'll do to those wimpy destroyers...
And another thing: yes you can split CAs and DDs more fine-grained than you can battleships, but really, except for skirmishing duty, you don't really want to! Even with skirmishing duty it usually isn't too painful to split a half dozen battleships of
...
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 16:41 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 16:05 |
"BTW a BET race should be carefull when I field AMP Nubs."
Nub=cheapest armour, we are talking pre-nub.
BET isn't so bad in the nub era... Sure the nub hull is double but lots of the toys that go in it cost less. These things have a way of influencing designs and balancing out.
A BET who plays horde cheap ships pre-nub, may go for more expensive toys in his more expensive nub hull to counter the suddenly nub horde opponents.
If you weren't my friend, I obviously wouldn't want you to live long enough to have nubs.
|
GACK. BET is HORRIBLE in the nubian era. And sucks everywhere else too.
In the nubian era in particular: your best weapons cost twice as much, your hull costs twice as much. You're spending a lot more for a lot less - everything that *isn't* a weapon or a shield on a nubian costs pennies (with the exception of comps). Nubians - in particular beamer nubians - only have a few expenses. Shields, beams (AMPs almost invariably, perhaps leavened by Synchro Sappers), capacitors, deflectors, jammers, maybe an overthruster. Plus engines of course. Where is the bulk of your cost located? In the hull, the shields, the beams, and maybe the engines. Your hull and beams will be doubled in cost. Will your other components drop enough to make this worthwhile? Not a chance.
Before the nubian era, you pay through the nose if you only get the tech you need...which means you need to buy an extra level of tech before you can start effectively start building. That extra research hurts when you need to start building (and if you don't burn the resources for the research, you're paying double in MINERALS too for each item you build - and early on, you don't have enough). Once you have got your transportation moving, you still need to worry about war tech. You need to hit con 10 before you can effectively start building cruisers - just the hull. Con 8 for even the AD8. Weapons 11 for colloidals (13 for jihads!), energy 7 (for wolverines), energy 8 (for capacitors), energy *11* for bears...
There is *no* time when BET isn't hurting you, slowing down your ability to rapidly respond to your opponents' advances and to exploit their weaknesses. NAS at least doubles your non-penscan range and provides a hefty point bonus. BET buys you a measly 5% decrease on the cost of items you most don't care about because they're totally obsolete! It doesn't even provide that large of a point bonus!
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
|
|
|
| Orca wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 14:41 |
GACK. BET is HORRIBLE in the nubian era. And sucks everywhere else too.
... It doesn't even provide that large of a point bonus.
|
BET plays different. Just as -f, AR, etc.
And it does give a huge bonus in certain areas.
I just won a game with my HE with BET. I took out the other strongest player, a JOAT NAS (non BET). For a while he had the #1 score.
Cost savings... get 16 techs above something like a starbase or a conventional battle computer and it costs 80% less (compared to 64% less). That means a ship may cost 20 resources or minerals rather than 36 in the ideal BET range. Suddenly shielded flak has bite for cheap and starbases can instantly pop up.
Things like bombers and large freighters cost less.
My gateable doomsday missile metamorphs with 12 regular battle computers didn't get a chance to have their day, but would have been effective if they did against ships that jammed for my budget jihad battleships (that were less attractive than my budget multirange beamers).
My budget multirange beamer horde ate up some high tech range 3 beamers with the help of a few budget older missile metamorphs.
Low tech destroyers held their own against higher tech cruisers, and sometimes did more than held their own.
And that is with my gateless HE having a delay in getting ships to the front.
[Updated on: Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 19:22 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
BET plays different. Just as -f, AR, etc.
|
No. BET plays badly. Like bi-immune, OBRM AR, etc. Come to think of it, it's a favorite of Oberlander too.
| multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
And it does give a huge bonus in certain areas.
<...>
Cost savings... get 16 techs above something like a starbase or a conventional battle computer and it costs 80% less (compared to 64% less). That means a ship may cost 20 resources or minerals rather than 36 in the ideal BET range. Suddenly shielded flak has bite for cheap and starbases can instantly pop up.
|
No. The difference is 80% versus 75% when fully miniaturized, and you miniaturize slightly faster (at 5% per level instead of 4% per level). This is largely inconsequential except when building hundreds to thousands of ships that have had a chance to miniaturize. And you pay a very heavy price to get it.
| multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
Things like bombers and large freighters cost less.
|
Very marginally so. And in exchange your hot-off-the-research-labs ships cost a hell of a lot more. This can make a major difference if you're under pressure or trying to put your opponents under pressure. Barbian horde really isn't a full-game ship design philosophy that can work when your opponents are paying attention and all else is equal.
| multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
My gateable doomsday missile metamorphs with 12 regular battle computers didn't get a chance to have their day, but would have been effective if they did against ships that jammed for my budget jihad battleships (that were less attractive than my budget multirange beamers).
|
Oooh lord. Save me now. Do you know what those gatable ships would have done against equivelent battleships? Died. Base init on a BB is 10. Plus 7 comps (even assuming they don't throw SBCs on) means at you're still looking at an init deficit of 3. Your missiles are a bit more accurately aimed, but you're using metamorphs. 500dp armor. A total of 3 GP left, split into 2/2/1. Did you use 2 missiles? 3? A single shield? You've nearly maxed out your computers on that thing, but you still can't match a BB for init. You *could* better a BB's init, but you'll be left unshielded, with a single missile in the front of your metamorph. Your base armor is vastly lower - much easier to punch kills through shields. Your *shields* are vastly inferior - anything that gets into range is going to get kills on you. Don't think that you'll be able to keep them out of harm's way by screening them either - I made that mistake years ago in Reclamation and lost half my nubian missile ships for my trouble. You *need* defenses on your weapons platforms. Metamorphs also need a large number of engines for their weight in firepower. Much like cruisers. More expenses. Nowhere near as efficient in terms of resources/unit of firepower or defense.
| multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
My budget multirange beamer horde ate up some high tech range 3 beamers with the help of a few budget older missile metamorphs.
Low tech destroyers held their own against higher tech cruisers, and sometimes did more than held their own.
And that is with my gateless HE having a delay in getting ships to the front.
|
Let's just put it this way - don't try this against LEit, OWK, myself - or the replacement Desquis player. MK IV cruisers can take on battleships, for a time. But they need to have started building sooner, built up a hefty fleet of them, and be mowing over the person that's building up battleships because those battleships can shred MK IVs once they start getting built in numbers...destroyers, in limited circumstances can take on cruisers. But with a bit of thinking, cruisers *will* knock them out. It's even more exagerated when taking on battleships.
...
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 20:15 |
|
|
|
Orca:
People like you have been playing stars for years. So insisting they are right after a while till someone shows them they aren't always. I heard lots about that reading old forgotten knowledge on a few message boards.
You again insist on rules that years ago were shown to be flawed.
My math with 16 levels of mini is right on. Sorry if you don't get it. Try getting 75% miniturization on collodial phasors. You can only get 64%. I get 80%, nearly half the cost.
I explained it all if you follow the thread, the pros and cons of cruisers verses battleships, etc. I agree init is nice. You don't always get init.
Sometimes it is better to save the germ and build 3 times as many ships.
I had a poor start (more sparse planets and packed tighter against other players) in a medium normal density game with 10 players. I was heavily at war by around turn 30 till the end of the game at turn 82. The game had certain handicaps as part of its theme. All opponents seemed to design their ships as counter designs to mine (as I had the biggest fleet).
Turn 50 I had 26K resources. Turn 82 I have 109K resources. This is despite giving lots of germ and other mineral support to my friends as well as helping them get lots of factory full planets. In return they focused on techs and worked towards nubs while I did the war front.
Don't be so sure you will have an easy time with me or any other unconventional thinker. People like you have been proven wrong in the past, somehow that has gotten forgotten again with these 10+ commandments of stars that aren't so right as some of you think.
Newbie waiting for fate (or ready to deliver it to Orca).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 20:33 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Oooh lord. Save me now. Do you know what those gatable ships would have done against equivelent battleships? Died. Base init on a BB is 10. Plus 7 comps (even assuming they don't throw SBCs on) means at you're still looking at an init deficit of 3. Your missiles are a bit more accurately aimed, but you're using metamorphs. 500dp armor
|
You don't get it. Flak for enemy missiles. 4 missiles plus one shield (nearly 500 in shielding at my advanced energy level). I pierce enemy megapoly shell if need be. Enemy can't make it to my missile ships, it is a matter of the mix of ships.
Compared to battleships with 16 or 20 missiles my armour and shield levels with 4-5 metamorphs are comparable as well as my missile count. Mineral costs aren't that much different, but I CAN GATE! Try attacking me while I go on the rampage elsewhere.
I can gate in flak, beamers AND ADVANCED MISSILE SHIPS in a moments notice if you try to go after my IS friend. Of course heavier battleships can be used for the fewer gates of my IT friend.
It isn't just the init that counts or the attractiveness. It is the order of init and attractiveness. As long as my missile ships fire after my sappers take out all shields (and your flak is killed), I get a hit. As long as some form of my flak survives, even if it is old gattling destroyers or newer shielded flak, you don't do much with those so germ expensive battleships.
My newer missile ships were supported by a massive horde, including over 400 budget beamer battleships and 100+ budget missile battleships and an endless supply of flak. And my friends had ships too, including ones given by me.
Go big on init and I throw my lowest init budget ships at you. Go not so big on init and I out init you. Counterdesign games where gatable really helps.
[Updated on: Fri, 19 March 2004 12:23] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 21:36 |
|
|
|
When a ship costs half the minerals you can afford to have twice the ships. When you don't scrap ships as often or create new designs as often you have more old stuff lieing around ready for another use such as flak.
All this talk of advanced ships with advanced init (and the best beams) comes at a advanced cost, often with no better armour. More poorer ships is a cheap way to gain armour.
Part of basic horde strategy.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Thu, 18 March 2004 04:44 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| multilis wrote on Thu, 18 March 2004 03:36 |
When a ship costs half the minerals you can afford to have twice the ships...
|
Your ships don't cost a half. I did a quick testbed: a JoaT with BET, the same race without it, 1000 years forced gen, max tech.
A "horde" CC (6 MarkIV, 2 gorilla, 1 jammer 20, AD-8, mass 139) costs a BET race 19/31/9/77 and 28/37/13/128 a NoBET race. The discount is about 2/3. My late game CC (4 MagaD, 2 tech-21 sappers, elephant shields, 2 caps, TGMS-16 engine) costs 29/104/49/221, is faster and lighter, and can kill 3 BET CCs, even 4 if moving the last.
But late game beamer Nub (6 AMP, 6 CPS, 9 cap's, 3J30, 12 BD, TS10 engine) costs a BET race 222/288/156/807, while a NoBET pays 147/144/153/510. My late game experience says that the main limiting factor for building ships is germ, and after that iron. Since germ costs of both designs are equal, a BET race will produce only 2/3 of Nubs (a half of them if bora runs out first).
A BET can not be an advantage, because each generation of weapons costs close to the previous one, but does 3 times the damage. Compared to that a BET discount of 10-30% doesn't count much. As LEit already wrote: you killed that JoaT with bigger econ, more minerals and with the help of friends, not with BET.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Thu, 18 March 2004 10:54 |
|
|
|
My multirange (1,2,3) budget beamer battleships ships cost half the minerals of some of my opponents range 3 expensive beamers.
Mine were intentionally less than warp 10 engines verses their fancy warp 10 range 3 super hitters. Some of the enemy were the germ expensive super init chaff killer type, others focused on caps.
Techs were not maxed out yet, we were forcing our opponents to focus on war to slow down their losses.
Mineral consumption at games end of my budget battleships, the old mainstay of my fleet (438 remaining) was:
154 Iron, 115 Bor, 101 Germ
In a battle where I believe I had 120 of them plus the 50 old jihad metamorphs (shoot like 100 first gen jihad cruisers) verses enemy around 100 more expensive beamers, I had a decisive victory with minimal losses which basically sealed the game.
My ships are lighter, potential for last move against other battleships, and I could gate easier.
Their big role is to keep the support safe, sap the shields and inflict horde style losses after that. Enemy can't counter with hard hitting range 0-2 ships easily, and I also manage against range 3 cruisers. (When I first built them the enemy had range 0 cruisers in reserve).
Also multirange means a low attractive sapper may get within range 1 or 2 and get blasted rather than slipping by to my precious missile ships.
I had learned with my previous gattling destroyer horde to expect everyone to be build counter designs to me. Horde style means you want the design to last for potentially decades despite this. (Though not in production for decades).
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2004 10:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Thu, 18 March 2004 13:34 |
|
|
|
Game had major handicap, major war was started in 2430. Some players were beginners, some had played many stars games.
My race design is not without weaknesses (as all are). But my growth was not from taking other's factories, I probably gave away many more factories than I aquired through combat.
If I had played peaceful till 2450 (which was possible) and worked on techs I wanted rather than the comprimises required for my friends (the game ended up breaking into competing factions with diplomacy required to try and keep faction together), yes nubs would have been flying.
Force war and less tech work gets done, on top of the initial game handicaps which had a limiting effect on tech.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 09 05:14:37 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
There is huge difference. 
About 100 BB battle was decisive? What?!? 
In medium game? Where went the 1000+ nubian fleets? 
