Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Stars! battles: all about numbers and calculations or not? (split off)
| Re: The Ten Commandments of Playing Stars! |
Thu, 18 December 2003 20:03   |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| alexdstewart wrote on Fri, 19 December 2003 01:34 |
Aha, am, Oookay...
So the scanner heavy nub can see me 1.5 times futher than usual. At 98% against NAS tat be ... lez see, 30 ly?
|
48ly range against 98% cloak for a nub completely loaded with Peerless scanners.
| Quote: |
I mean I "AGREE" that this changes the tactical situation complitely... "everybody" puts QJ5 engine on their nubs so they "cannot" attack exposed weak points in one turn without you seeing 'em, right?
|
You still have to deal with his minefields (ok, there are tactics for that).
Other options to spot your fleets are FF's with bio scanners on them placed everywhere. There's IS I already mentioned, the JoaT (FF's without a scanner placed everywhere) and also the SD with his minefield scanning (2% chance to see your fleet when in his minefields) or even detonations to spot intruding fleets. Really, it's not that simple as it looks.
You're right that stealth is an important factor. But  if your stealth is so good you're better off with the "master fleet tactic": fake to have less ships and the enemy master fleet won't retreat giving you the chance to kill it.  And once that fleet is dead than you split up your own master fleet and start killing his planets, although the game will be over before his planets are dead since your enemy wouldn't be able to recover from such a lose ...
| Quote: |
P. S. People should note that I play SS and achieving 98% cloak is as easy as slapping 3 superstealth cloaks. Other races might find it extrimely difficult to achieve 98% so, the scanner heavy subs "argument" might be true...
|
Sure for SS it's cheaper to get to 98% cloaking, for normal races it's too hard to get "true" cloaking (meaning getting their entire battle fleet upto 98%, that's almost never done). SS has it so much easier to also cloak their chaff ...
BTW, you don't slap 3 supercloaks on your warships! You load them on a nub that you make as heavy as you can with armor (for more details on the ratio cloak/armor check the Over Cloaker posts, I think they're in the SS section), that way you don't waste a valuable slot on your nubs.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: The Ten Commandments of Playing Stars! |
Mon, 22 December 2003 07:34 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| alexdstewart wrote on Mon, 22 December 2003 05:14 |
What FF's with bioscanners? 
SURELY you're not talking about the scouts I just blew up with my CHAFF? 
....
|
Yeah, and where I blew that chaff away with a bit more chaff, and you added a bit more chaff the second time and then I send in some old CCs and you sent a nub, then I sent two nubs and before you know we are both sending our master fleets to hunt down those scouts! How about that for skirmishing!?
| Quote: |
oh... You DO have 512 fleet limit too...
|
Yeah, <sigh> ran into that often enough playing in large team games ...
| Quote: |
and I HATE the fully loaded nubian scanner platforms- they are just so... EXPENSIVE  !
|
Of course they're expensive, and of course the lots of FF scanning isn't ideal, but you have to do what you have to do. If you don't put out scanners you're only making it easier for your enemy ...
| Quote: |
I could prabably take care of your minefields to an acceptable level. The only problem is getting those limp bombers in. IMO all those Space Superiority battles are all fun and stuff, but in the end they are useless if the bombers don't get through, or freighters, or packets...
The challenge of delivering all those bombers through the mines is so daunting, it makes packet bombing much more attractive...
|
Minefields are usually not the biggest problem, except for the fact that multiple small sweepers again push towards the fleet limit and chaff sweeping does that too of course ... 
Packet bombing is useless against well defended worlds, unless you have HUGE amounts of minerals to spent ...
| Quote: |
Maybe I'll play -f PP next time? 
|
Give it a try, there was a nice thread about it here or on the newsgroup, can't remember right now.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: The Ten Commandments of Playing Stars! |
Fri, 23 April 2004 13:45 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
LOL. That, and I've had a few people tell me that Stars! is equivelent to playing a spreadsheet. That everything is fairly absolute, with very little in the way of randomness. Heh, I laugh at those people, and tell them to go back to playing "Risk", if they want an excuse for losing.
|
I agree with you here Matt.
In my last game, my second JOAT opponent had some super high init 2.25 movement (first strike/chaff killer) beamer battleships, jug battleships, and chaff. There were also a few of his allies ships. The area of conflict was us pushing the border in his direction and him trying to fight back or hold our advance (after his previous suprise assistance to JOAT #1).
We had various lower init beamer battleships, missile ships, chaff, etc in multiple fleets owned by 3 parties. I set up a testbed because the whole thing was very complex.
Turned out:
#1 - battle orders made a huge difference, and it is hard to predict what the other side will have or which ships will be brought into the battle.
#2 - even with same 'best' battle orders, things could go wildly one way or the other based on chance. His main threat was his fewer jug missile ships, hard to say how long chaff would last, hard to say if my beamers would reach his missile ships, etc.
...
In another situation, JOAT #1 lauched some raider battleships into the territory of my former IT friend who dropped out by suprise (guess he was happy with his revenge against the JOAT who crippled him figured he was now too far behind despite getting out of last place score wise). My fleets were split up, I could only defend one key world well (I was also spread thin having to also protect my friends colonists and transports as well). I guessed wrong, the enemy risked a minefield to take down a gate and bomb a different one.
In this and in many other situations it was a gamble where enemy forces would be moved to or gated to. When we guessed right a gate was taken down. Guess wrong and we lost some ship. With over 6 points of conflict, 6 very human players involved, the magic power of gates in defence, and possible cloaking lots is up to chance and guess.
Even if you know the ships involved you dont know the battle orders or the quirks of what direction some ships will move.
...
To add another variation of gamble, this time on defence from our last game. JOAT #2 suddenly joins an early conflict with 350+ unknown destroyers. By weight they could be delta torp or armoured beamers. Delta torp seemed more logical but some of the other players (likely newbies) seemed to like armour.
We were trying to defend our IT #2 friends new gate in the middle of the map. The enemy had a gate < 81 ly away with the new forces showing up. I had missed orbital checking that turn (my mistake, was an area we had just taken over and things were crazy all over the map including minefield work).
I could overgate in 300+ (don't remember number) gattling destroyers or send them elsewhere. If we were facing delta torp destroyers, my gattlings would turn the tide and we would win (including destroying some jihads). But if the enemy ships were armoured beamers we would lose everything.
Hard decision, consulted with all my friends. We played it 'safe' and lost the colony including a gate and lots of pop, where if we had risked we would have saved the colony and hurt the enemy bad (as they were really delta torps).
[Updated on: Fri, 23 April 2004 14:18] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Ten Commandments of Playing Stars! |
Sat, 24 April 2004 04:24 |
|
 Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
What's the problem with only human caused randomness in stars?
Why is it relevant to have randomness?
Ever heard of chess? People play it since hundreds of years and still have fun, although there is no chance in game and only one opponent and you always see the entire board. Chess is even totally determined, there are less than 6,27* 10000.....00000 (57 zeros) ways to place the 32 figures on the board, so in theory its possible to calculate the outcome of game in case of perfect players, since then outcome is always white wins, black wins or remis.
Chinese go is also a great game without chance, but i've never played it.
Even if battles in stars are nearly determined, if ships and battle orders are known(missle plays minor role in big battles, if you fire 10000 missiles with final accuracy of 30%, then nearly always 2500-3500 will hit), there is enough chance outside battles, e.g. behaviour and skill of others, movement through mines, cloaking, limited scan, limited info, limited time to calculate every possibility, different race designs and the old "damn, i didn't see the armed scout with his pop drop force, i should have put a single laser on fort  " and "damn, all my neighbours allied against me  ".
And there are far more possible situations in stars than in chess, so I'm optimistic that it'll take longer to calculate stars completely, if ever.
Carn
[Updated on: Sat, 24 April 2004 17:00] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: The Ten Commandments of Playing Stars! |
Fri, 07 May 2004 17:07 |
|
| Apelord |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 99
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 26 April 2004 12:07 |
| Apelord wrote on Mon, 26 April 2004 12:46 |
Stars! battles are not random. They happen under a very strict set of circumstances, there is a very deterministic outcome, etc.
|
Not quite. There is a small degree of randomness involved. Ship movement and init determination, if both parties have equal init. Both can play a large factor in many battles. Let's not forget other random factors, either. Example:
Once upon a time, I had an ally that decided he wanted to watch me destroy an enemy fleet that I had lured into a trap (I had informed him of what was about to happen). I had simmed everything *except* my ally gating in a scout, to watch the battle. I lost half my fleet instead of a clear victory...
-Matt
|
Your 'other random factors' example is an example of human behavior which I refer to 'fog of war', i.e. the unpredictability of people.
Slap two (or more) fleets together and the battle is virtually the same every time EXCEPT when the fleets are very very close in capabilities, then your first point is correct in that small incidental random factors such as which square you move to first can play a role. However typically if you take the same battle and add 5% more (oftentimes less) more forces to one side irons out any wrinkles induced by small random fluctuations.
"The object of war is not to die
for your country but to make
the other bastard die for his" -George PattonReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: The Ten Commandments of Playing Stars! |
Fri, 07 May 2004 21:13 |
|
| mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Apelord wrote on Fri, 07 May 2004 16:07 |
Your 'other random factors' example is an example of human behavior which I refer to 'fog of war', i.e. the unpredictability of people.
|
The "Fog of War" is historically defined as a lack or loss of situational awareness on the battlefield that leads to confusion, not strictly the "Unpredictability of people".
| Quote: |
However typically if you take the same battle and add 5% more (oftentimes less) more forces to one side irons out any wrinkles induced by small random fluctuations.
|
You were speaking in absolutes, it is not. While I agree fore the most part with what you are saying, I am just pointing out that it is not an absolute. Also, the 5% is the low end. I have experienced different outcomes all the way into the 25% range, just because different movement caused chaff to come under fire, when testing showed they wouldn't. Granted, it doesn't happen often, but that isn't the point here.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: The Ten Commandments of Playing Stars! |
Mon, 10 May 2004 15:34 |
|
|
|
And again, this comes down to the decision of what battle orders you assign to which units.
A decade ago (and maybe still today) a wargame existed created by Avalon Hill. The name of the board game was 'Kriegspiel'. This game was adopted by West Point as a tactics teaching aid for new US Army officer cadets. The game only used a roll of the dice for random factors like weather. All the rest was a match of battle orders (I still have the game Kriegspiel).
This has not been lost in Stars!. Most players simply forget about battle orders, yet, in battle, they can make all the difference. A weak fleet with the Stars! equivalent of 'fighting withdrawal' battle orders CAN kill a superior fleet with 'maximize damage' orders.
In all the dozens of games I've played, most battle order combinations are simply ignored. With all the MM it is so easy simply to forget to check and adjust the orders for every fleet -almost every player is more concerned with managing the base economy and dealing with major war much later. By that time, players tend to work on attacking enemy targets using the 'calculator' to make sure they will win. Even the calculator can be wrong. Then, the battle happens, the intelligent battle orders win and messages fly around from the loser of the battle asking 'how could this happen? !!!' The true answer is that he/she came up against a better intergalactic admiral.
When I send fleets into battle I carefully choose the battle orders I assign to each ship. I may use 23 beam BB's with exactly the same design yet, split them into two or 3 separate fleets, all with different battle orders. Forget the 'who moves last' case - if one of my fleets hangs back intentionally - it will probably move into range last. So, we are back again to battle orders vs. shear numbers in combat. There are cases where I have happily sacrificed 10+ BB's or Nubians to inflict double the resource damage to an enemy. Testbeds make a great deal of difference also, by infusing an intrinsic understanding of battle order interaction during the tests.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:40]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 10:12:52 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
