| EAC vs IRC |
Thu, 29 July 2004 12:58  |
|
 LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
First blood shed in the EAC vs IRC game at year 2404.
A Jillas (IRC) scout encountered a Bakuhatsu (EAC) mine field.
And a Savage Bovine (EAC) Little Hen layer encountered a Dark Star (IRC) DD.
These incidents happened at opposite sides of the galaxy.
From this it's clear that team EAC has 2 SDs, at least.
[Edit wrong year 2403->2404]
[Updated on: Fri, 06 August 2004 16:08]
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Fri, 06 August 2004 16:27  |
|
|
|
Might be useful to have a summary here of game rules/setup. Some of us have been only loosely following, (other games acting as distraction). I had thought there was a 300ly buffer zone between North and South HW placements.
If I were to make an 8 player team would more likely double up IT rather than SD for fast movements including of PRT specific toys. But most likely would not double anything up as greedy for toys/advantages of 8+ different races.
[Updated on: Fri, 06 August 2004 16:28] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Fri, 06 August 2004 16:46 |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
Some additional comments about the State of the Universe circa 2410. The western quarter is heavily contested with minelayers and interceptors on both sides flying about trying to kill each other. The middle segments are fairly quiet for the moment, but look to be heating up (this is where 2 colonization fleets died this turn). The eastern quarter is lightly contested, but with both sides sniping at each other.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Fri, 06 August 2004 20:07 |
|
|
|
Commentary on this international event from one of our 'expert' commentators (who doesn't really have a clue):
Since war power at this stage tends to double every five turns or faster (counting both resource growth and techs gained improving effective power/resources used), I would expect a mostly defensive style with thrusts for securing gates and defensive strongholds nearer to the enemy... in other words the most powerful warship is often the gated stardock.
From the sidelines I am guessing the battles are mostly between SS (or warmonger), SD, IT powers (with the SS getting ships built by others and transfered). IT unarmed ships trying to set up gates, SD using difficulty of sweeping minefields with only range 1 weapons and SS using sniping/suprise abillity.
Both sides likely have SS scouts transfered to NAS warmonger (for finding out enemy ship designs in advance). Possible variation on this will soon be CA or SD DNA scanners being transfered to a NAS warmonger.
[Updated on: Fri, 06 August 2004 20:09] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Mon, 09 August 2004 17:24 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
For 2411:
EAC loses 1 scout, 1 DD, 2 SFs, 3 MFs, 4 layers
IRC loses 1 DD
Both DDs were lost to detonating mine fields, so there may have been more then one lost on each side (if you kill the whole fleet, it doesn't tell you how many ships that was).
A lot of the EAC cargo ships arn't full, however, we think they've lost about 50k pop in the last 2 turns, most of that to two races, their colony ships are pushing into no-mans land (the 300ly gap between our starting positions), and are paying the price.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Tue, 10 August 2004 11:26 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
2412 - the monkeys strike back! IRC loses 3 DDs and a layer to minefields, EAC loses 2 layers to Dark Star DDs. Also potentially detonated on their own colonization fleet (oops!). If so, that's up to an additional 2 MFs and a scout lost by EAC.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Tue, 24 August 2004 17:16 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
The game is up to 2422 now. Skirmishing continues, losses mounting for both sides, I think we're still doing better, but I'm not keeping an exact count. Our DDs are getting heavily damaged by mine fields. However, repairs are free 
So far team IRC hasn't lost any colonists, EAC has lost a fair amount, almost all to their IS races, who have been pushing colonies towards us.
Things have been fairly static the last few turns, there is a line about half way between us, they control one half, we control the other half. There are a few spots we've got control on their half, and one area where they've got control of our half. They have pushed a few layers deeper into our territory, but those have been cleared by now.
EAC has built a few Alpha DDs to hunt WM scouts. We've just let our WM go scout hunting as needed. Scout hunting, mine layer hunting, colonizer hunting, freighter hunting... They've been busy >:)
Team EAC has 2 SDs, 2 ISs, 2 CAs, an IT, and probably an AR. The SDs and ISs are their front line races (HWs right on the border), and are building colonies all over the place. Our guess is that the front 4 are fast, and the back 4 are going to be big.
I know that they know that we have an SD and a WM. They've seen Orbital Adjusters of ours, so they know we have a CA too.
One of their CAs have set up a w/l site with the two SDs, to pass out biotech.
Their scouts have mostly been kept back, so since I'm not sure what they know, I can't tell much about our team's situation.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Wed, 25 August 2004 11:07 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I think we're still doing better, but I'm not keeping an exact count.
|
Of course one can suffer twice the losses and still be winning. More important is growth and territory which is hard to measure.
| Quote: |
No WM ? That's odd
|
Similar can be said about most other PRTs, each has a use... even HE, PP, JOAT in their own ways. Can't have them all.
If the intel is correct (it is possible to fake IS flying orgy with an SS helping), then it looks like EAC is going for doubling specialists (CA quick monster ecconomy, IS for defences/pop drop, SD for securing territory).
In team games sometimes doubling up works, have heard of where a double IT (QS+HP) won due to speed of focusing forces.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: EAC vs IRC |
Wed, 25 August 2004 11:42 |
|
| Ettane |
 | Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 63
Registered: June 2003
Location: Canada | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 25 August 2004 08:07 |
In team games sometimes doubling up works, have heard of where a double IT (QS+HP) won due to speed of focusing forces.
|
Heh, I've also got an 8-way IT combo I've wanted to try. One IT with expensive but super efficient factories and mines but a small, centered hab, and seven other 'helper' -f IT's, each with a decent hab and TT. Basically, the primary IT has 8 100% worlds right off the bat for its people to grow into, and 8 more decent worlds, while the seven helper IT's spread and terraform, putting up gates and basic factories and mines for the main IT to expand to later on. Another variant on this would be to have one or two power CAs with TT and cheap bio replace one or two of the helper IT's, and get the helper IT's to skip the terraforming part in favour of faster gates and remote terraforming. In theory, it should have a mind-numbing resource curve.
Imagine having eight 100% worlds that you don't have any wasted travel time to, and that have factories and mines already built, and a gate network on 16 worlds spread out reasonably evenly across the universe. And you get all this on turn zero! <drool>
We almost tried it for this game, but we changed our minds and went with what we have now. Too boring for the seven helper races; win or lose, we wanted everyone to have fun this time round. So far, it's defintely been a fun game! Can't wait till turn 50-60! (Assuming we live that long of course...)
: D
[Mod edit: fixed quote]
[Updated on: Thu, 26 August 2004 14:42] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
