| Starbases vs Over computing nubs |
Sun, 02 March 2003 10:25  |
|
|
|
Ok here's the idea...
My enemy has starbases... maybe a handful of ultra stations.
I know for fact he only has super computer tech.. I have the same.
I have nubians and I was wondering if I loaded them with super computers (27) and capitol missiles (the battle speed of the ship is less than 1) and slapped them against a starbase and an ultrastation who would fire first???
I assume my ships would due to the high init, but I also know starbases get a range bonus. If I brought enough of my ships to knock out the starbase in one shot would this be a sound tactic? I know my enemy only has battleships and couldn't get enough init to fire first in a straight fight and I'm counting on my (much) lower weight and init advantage to keep them at bay... even if they have cap missiles too.
Is this madness or am I spot on the mark?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Starbases vs Over computing nubs |
Sun, 02 March 2003 11:15  |
|
|
|
It's a chaff-less game.
And I'm not talking about killing the gate. I'm talking about a primary ship design. Since there's no chaff the missile is king. What I wanted to do is keep the weight low so I can gate my ships. Best way to do this is to make sure jammers have little effect so I need LESS missile and to use as little armour as possible. Hence I'm lookin at a ship design that can't take much of a beating at all but can be used to take down a starbase (by purely firing first) and also take out enemy fleets (again by firing first but also by being light enough to keep the enemy beamers out of range or enemy missile ships always chasing).
What I meant by this being a sound tatic is what I stated above, build ships that are not designed in any way shape or form to be hit. This design I could build and mass produce AND gate for a good 20 years before my enemy gets nubians. And even when he does he'll need to build either higher init ships or heavy armoured ships - in other words he loses gateability or he's 20 years behind production wise.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Starbases vs Over computing nubs |
Mon, 03 March 2003 05:28 |
|
|
|
The SB will have one extra range so unless you can squeeze some more movement(and time the step from out of the bases range to inside your range) You'll still have to face one round fire from the base even with higher init. All assuming you have equal ranged missiles.
[Updated on: Mon, 03 March 2003 05:47] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Starbases vs Over computing nubs |
Mon, 03 March 2003 11:04 |
|
 yucaf |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 100
Registered: December 2002
Location: India | |
|
| Abbadon wrote on Sun, 02 March 2003 15:27 |
No chaff.... interesting
Define chaff !
Build BB chaff. Beamers with jammers and shields to take any potential hits from enemy ships and starbases, shielding your missile BB's.
Abbadon
|
Be careful with that: too well protected beamer ships may become less attractive that nice powerful missiles ships with no jamming and little armor/shielding. I strongly suggest you simulate your designs first. It has happened that the missiles ships become the primary target and after the first round you only are left with beamer ships and your main power gone to salvage on the enemy planet! The additional range (+1) for starbase may well become your doom (he fires, you don't).
If no chaff is allowed (whatever that means), then just consider the starbase as an additional ship with high initiative and big stacks of missiles. They will get some kills maybe, but they are no more that the equivalent to 3 or 4 good BB's. They use missiles, use jammers. 80%+ jamming will ruin his day (quite easy with Nubians and jammer30)
IMHO, it would be silly to design mainline ships with such high initiative just to be able to take over some starbases. The design of your main fleet should be the best you can get against enemy ship designs, not starbase designs. I have found that in the late game (Nubian era), fighting the initiative war may deplete too fast your germanium. Being short on Ironium is enough a trouble, you don't want to be short on 2 minerals!
Furthermore, in the Nubian era, initiative is not as important as in the BB era (there is recent discussion about that somewhere, cannot remember if it's here or on RGCS) since defensive power has become quite high. A starbase is by no mean something to be afraid of at that level of technology. Take some hits, maybe a couple of dead ship, and just destroy the fat bunch of metal orbiting the planet. Now, there's still 250 Nubians to take care of? Aaahhh, this should be your main concern, don't you think?
Another way to get past the range issue is have a collaborative attack with several players so the starting positions on the board have you in range from round one (another thread around here on the Forum)
Good luck anyway! 
YucaF
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Starbases vs Over computing nubs |
Mon, 03 March 2003 14:15 |
|
|
|
I think a few key points of my post were missed....
1. I have nubs. No-one else does. My enemy will take at least 20 years to reach nub tech as he's only just got BB's. I want a design that for the next 20 years will have guaranteed victory with little or no losses. Hence a ship that doesn't get fired at is the plan. He'll either have to build lots and lots more missile ships which will ruin his ironium or wait till he gets nubians... in which time I should have caused major havoc and destruction.
2. This ship design doesn't need testing against their ship designs as of yet because they have nothing that could come close to beating it, even if they have 2 ships to every nub.
3. My concern was that if the starbase fired first my ships would not be able to take a hit.... or not many anyway. As such I needed to out init the starbase... no BB could get even close to me.
The best counter they could build (with current tech) would be heavy torpedo (not missile) BB's with stacks of jammer 20's - which wouldn't take much to knock down with these nubs.
Minerals aren't a problem (for another 30 or 40 years) as I'm playing a super-miner -F race. Minerals I have in vast abundance.
As for the battle board positioning "bug" I believe this to be banned to... i mean Chaff is so battle board defo will be!!!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Starbases vs Over computing nubs |
Mon, 03 March 2003 17:25 |
|
| yucaf |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 100
Registered: December 2002
Location: India | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Mon, 03 March 2003 14:15 |
I think a few key points of my post were missed....
1. I have nubs. No-one else does. My enemy will take at least 20 years to reach nub tech as he's only just got BB's. I want a design that for the next 20 years will have guaranteed victory with little or no losses. Hence a ship that doesn't get fired at is the plan. He'll either have to build lots and lots more missile ships which will ruin his ironium or wait till he gets nubians... in which time I should have caused major havoc and destruction.
2. This ship design doesn't need testing against their ship designs as of yet because they have nothing that could come close to beating it, even if they have 2 ships to every nub.
3. My concern was that if the starbase fired first my ships would not be able to take a hit.... or not many anyway. As such I needed to out init the starbase... no BB could get even close to me.
The best counter they could build (with current tech) would be heavy torpedo (not missile) BB's with stacks of jammer 20's - which wouldn't take much to knock down with these nubs.
Minerals aren't a problem (for another 30 or 40 years) as I'm playing a super-miner -F race. Minerals I have in vast abundance.
As for the battle board positioning "bug" I believe this to be banned to... i mean Chaff is so battle board defo will be!!!
|
I think I understood well. What I can't understand is that you want to go to fight big heavy starbases and enemy warships and do not want to get any losses. You want a ship that will be "garanteed victory with little or no losses for the next 20 years"  Come on... "garantee" does not exists in a strategy game unless your opponent is already chess mate.
Back to your matter, you have a huge advantage (unless he is really far ahead in weapon?), so just go fight and kill him. As you say, he won't have the Nubian before 20 turns and you have almost infinite minerals. What can a couple of lost Nubians change to the matter? In 20 turns he will have disappeared from the map, and you will have won the game  . The only thing you have to do is ensure you will maximize his losses and minimize yours.
So, my advice is still the same: out init his ships and just destroy the starbases. Do not design your ships based on his starbases, as it is quite easy to "re-design" them. If you build only unjammed ships, he will put capital missiles. If you jam, he will use torpedos... It is much harder to "re-design" 300 battleships once they are built. Starbases are by no mean a real threat once you attack them with Nubians.
If you do not want any loss, do not play a "no chaff" game as without it, it is quite difficult / impossible not to have losses in any battle of consequent size (an a full armed Ultra Station qualifies as "consequent").
Regarding the battle board positioning, it is not a bug, it is not considered a cheat (at least not so far). Only its abuse would qualify as cheat, like giving ships to dead players or unwilling players. I was talking about a "coordinated attack", not cheating... It is a feature, wanted by the conceivers, and it has been used in many games...
Now, that's only my 2 cents. If someone want to try to help you designing the ultimate ship that can't be defeated by anyone, he's welcome Personnaly, I think this does not exit. But a good starting point would be to give some more details on the enemy designs, their exact technologies and yours... It's all about design/ counterdesign/ countercounterdesign...
Side Note: this is the very proof that without chaff, the one who gets more minerals and is able to build more missiles is the one who wins (like back to the boring pre-chaff era), hence the interest of chaff... 
No offense intended, I may have had too much sangria with those lobsters 
Regards,
YucaF
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Starbases vs Over computing nubs |
Wed, 05 March 2003 16:33 |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
Sorry, I indeed misunderstood.
To answer your question I need to repeat a remark made by another poster: the ultra station is not the biggest threat on the board, do not design your ships around a base design.
As for a ship which takes very few losses, you already have the best platform for that: the nubian.
I've been in a game where I also was the first (and only one) to get to nubs and taking out ultras (with juggers IIRC) was easy, even without chaff, and that was using _only_ beamer nubs (when I finally ran out of bor and started building arma nubs the game was over).
A stack of nubs can take a amount of damage, an ultra is no match for them. And they can be made _cheap_, loosing a few in a battle is affordable. So I guess you would be interested in cheap "throw away" nubians? 
If you really are afraid of the bases you can just build missile nubs with the highest init than the base will never have a chance. If you want to use that design as your main line missile ship or not (and keep it as a specialist) is up to you, that would depend on your mineral ratios.
Are you planning on only building missile nubs? Beamer nubs are much faster gathered (unless you're IT) and with good shields (at least 2 slots), good jamming (more than one slot) they will be tough. Depending on the missile/beam composition of your enemy fleet you can use the standard 3 slots for deflectors or more ...
But I've never been in a no-chaff game, I like beamers too much so I can't give any more direct advice ...
regards,
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
