A> M.a... you always reply to posts in this manner. You sequentially select quotes and then answer it, while ignoring the entire flow of a post.

If you agree that chaff is allowed/'legit' because Jeffs said so, but allocation isnt ... then you are not using your own independent thought

Only because Jeffs didn't make any mention about the minefield damage ALLOCATION, that doesn't make it wrong.

C> Observe the common thread between the 2 concepts (chaff/allocation).... they both are tactics caused by game coding.

if we allow allocation, we should allow dodge as well... that won't happen.

(ps - I said this whole thing in a much more concise version in my 1st post..)
Quote:

Just because Jeffs acknowledged the chaff issue but didn't know about the other implementation of the mine damage dodge concept for mine damage allocation, doesn't mean that the mine damage allocation is an aberration.

Going by what it'd do to gameplay, I'd have to say that while chaff certainly helped, mine damage allocation would generally be bad for gameplay. Allowing sturdy ships to "tank" mine damage and allow fragile ones through would decrease the effectiveness of mines, which are already somewhat unreliable for defense but still relatively necessary to handle a job that nothing else can effectively do.

Going by what it'd do to gameplay, I'd have to say that while chaff certainly helped, mine damage allocation would generally be bad for gameplay. Allowing sturdy ships to "tank" mine damage and allow fragile ones through would decrease the effectiveness of mines, which are already somewhat unreliable for defense but still relatively necessary to handle a job that nothing else can effectively do.

How exactly do you "ban" the uneven damage allocation that occurs when, say, a fleet of 2 BBs (of different designs) hits a minefield?

The primary defensive benefit of minefields, I find, is not the damage they do, it's that they stop the enemy's fleet.

skoormit wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 03:04

The primary defensive benefit of minefields, I find, is not the damage they do, it's that they stop the enemy's fleet.

You never lost all aux ships for an attack flee...

Chaff sweeping is indeed a "OOE" exploit, although it's also fairly easy to ban (or not) from a game - the streak of debris is pretty obvious.
The counter argument that it costs fleet IDs is certainly valid, in larger universes at least.
...

m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 04:03

skoormit wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 03:04

The primary defensive benefit of minefields, I find, is not the damage they do, it's that they stop the enemy's fleet.

You never lost all aux ships for an attack flee...

Killing enemy aux ships is a secondary benefit. The primary benefit is stopping the warships.

Allocation is impossible to ban without banning mixed fleets - which is ridiculous.

The Mine damage dodge is an unanswerable version of...

Killing enemy aux ships is a secondary benefit. The primary benefit is stopping the warships.

skoormit wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 18:28

m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 04:03

skoormit wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 03:04

The primary defensive benefit of minefields, I find, is not the damage they do, it's that they stop the enemy's fleet.

You never lost all aux ships for an attack flee...

Killing enemy aux ships is a secondary benefit. The primary benefit is stopping the warships.

For anyone other than AR it's a heck of a benefit!

XAPBob wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 14:25

skoormit wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 18:28

m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 04:03

skoormit wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 03:04

The primary defensive benefit of minefields, I find, is not the damage they do, it's that they stop the enemy's fleet.

You never lost all aux ships for an attack flee...

Killing enemy aux ships is a secondary benefit. The primary benefit is stopping the warships.

For anyone other than AR it's a heck of a benefit!

I'm not following...killing aux ships is a great benefit, unless you are AR?

...
without bombers my planet lives, an AR doesn't have that luxury

...If, as you say, you go for a two year attack it's less important, but then you've lost some of the surprise element.

I'm going to assume we just have different philosophies about attacking into minefields.

I am almost never willing to risk a valuable fleet to move through a field quickly. Instead, I will sweep the field ahead of time.

There is simply no way to protect a minefield from being swept by a determined foe.

As for "tanking", the way you describe it, it doesn't sound too advantageous, then why go to all the trouble of doing it the "new" way instead of the old and easier way?

The reason people are saying that tanking shouldn't be banned is that you effectively ban mixed fleets by banning both dodge and tanking. See, if I have one aux ship (let's say a DD) and one BB in a fleet, then either the DD is first (mine damage dodge) or the BB is first (mine damage tanking).

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 14 April 2014 02:37

The reason people are saying that tanking shouldn't be banned is that you effectively ban mixed fleets by banning both dodge and tanking. See, if I have one aux ship (let's say a DD) and one BB in a fleet, then either the DD is first (mine damage dodge) or the BB is first (mine damage tanking).

I see the problem, but that's what careful case-by-case reviews are for. Even N-S minefield "immunity" can happen by sheer luck. The 1st time the BB soaks the dmg and the DD survives could be explained by "whoopsy". Repeated "lucky" events would be more and more suspicious.

To repeat:

"mixed-fleet A hit your minefield at X. No ships, however weak, were killed" -->> a rare enough event that demands a review "automatically".

"mixed-fleet B hit your minefield at Y. Just a (few) lowly ship was killed" -->> a "lucky" enough event that should trigger a review too.

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 14 April 2014 02:37

The reason people are saying that tanking shouldn't be banned is that you effectively ban mixed fleets by banning both dodge and tanking. See, if I have one aux ship (let's say a DD) and one BB in a fleet, then either the DD is first (mine damage dodge) or the BB is first (mine damage tanking).

I see the problem, but that's what careful case-by-case reviews are for. Even N-S minefield "immunity" can happen by sheer luck. The 1st time the BB soaks the dmg and the DD survives could be explained by "whoopsy". Repeated "lucky" events would be more and more suspicious.

To repeat:

"mixed-fleet A hit your minefield at X. No ships, however weak, were killed" -->> a rare enough event that demands a review "automatically".

"mixed-fleet B hit your minefield at Y. Just a (few) lowly ship was killed" -->> a "lucky" enough event that should trigger a review too.