| NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Tue, 21 September 2004 21:50  |
|
|
|
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 21 September 2004 19:00 |
4) if it has advanced scanners or remote mining;
|
If you don't have advanced scanners and I know it, you are in trouble. Not much you can do to see an attack coming bar sending a scout to every single planet in your empire constantly to get killed by an incoming fleet. That is until some chaff sweeps all the planets ahead of an incoming strike, and elsewhere as a diversion.
Having NAS (and not being JOAT) would be a huge disadvantage if known to your enemies. Of course you can always fix it by trading for pen scanning ships from friends, but then in come the cloaks.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS |
Wed, 22 September 2004 10:49  |
|
|
|
Agree with Kotk that NAS very playable.
no NAS strengths
{
Penn scans mostly useful for extra info gained on planet habs and population that help know enemy layout.
Looking at orbital ships useful, especially newly built ones, but can be fooled by overcloakers
less strain on 512 fleet limit, micromanagement
planetary scanners more useful in later game
no need to trade for penn scans (which often means having less and tech behind ones on warfront)
}
NAS strengths
{
eccon boost from extra points
4x better non-orbital cloaker detection (area covered square of distance)
}
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS |
Wed, 22 September 2004 11:29 |
|
 vonKreedon |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
I tend to take NAS and see it as both a RW point mine and an advantage in game play. As noted by multilis, the 4xscanning coverage makes it much harder for enemies to sneak cloaked vessels into my space or to create concentrations of forces against me without my noticing. If my enemy is an SS then the increased scan coverage much more than makes up for the need to station chaff at empty planets because it greatly reduces the number of scanning ships I need to cover my borders.
The one situation that makes me wish for penscans is when I have a hard border with a soon to be enemy and I cannot tell what he is concentrating on his side of the border. This is particularly true if the soon to be enemy is IT because then I don't even have the opportunity to observe some of his missile boats and stormtroop carriers as they move to concentrate on the border. But other than that the much greater extent of scanning coverage provided by NAS much more than makes up for the need to keep a chaff on each non-populated planets to prevent cloaked planet hopping.
[Updated on: Wed, 22 September 2004 11:29] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Fri, 24 September 2004 11:27 |
|
| Steve1 |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia | |
|
| Quote: |
If you don't have advanced scanners and I know it, you are in trouble. Not much you can do to see an attack coming bar sending a scout to every single planet in your empire constantly to get killed by an incoming fleet.
|
Well just to be cheeky then I'll choose SS. 
Not only will my 98% cloaked ships sneak around your territory remaining just outside your effective pen-scan range (not too difficult to achieve), but I'll also steal minerals from your planets with my RB (which also has pen-scanning ability), whether you have a starbase there or not. 
For those nuisance minefields, well my race can safely travel at one warp speed faster through them than most other races.
And just for good measure I'll have some 98% cloaked Rogues waiting at the appropriate location for when you fling a mineral packet my way. The mineral packet will still strike its target, but will end up being only 1kt rather than 3000kt 
Seriously though, any other race choosing NAS still has heaps more starting points to work with and a definate advantage until decent pen scans come out at Elec10.
It's remarkable how much more space can be seen with NAS and if you know how to ping the enemy positions properly, it's rather hard for them to hide a fleet. 
I find that beginners and some low intermediates don't know how to do this properly and against them you have a supreme advantage, but against a reasonable player, pen-scans no longer give an unbeatable advantage. In fact you'll often find that the player you're fighting has a much larger economy due to choosing NAS. If they then swap for pen-scans with another race then guess who's in trouble ....... 
[Updated on: Fri, 24 September 2004 11:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sat, 25 September 2004 00:18 |
|
| Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
I think this discussion ingnores the fact, that advantage of pen scans depends on planet density.
The more planets there are, the more planets the NAS player has to check(and forget to do so) and so the disadvantages of NAS get bigger.
Also the more planets there are the less likely it is that an enemy fleet will travel open space, since there is less reason to do this, if there are a dozen important enemy worlds 40-80 LY from your own, so less advantage in double range.
And third, fleet limit problems are more serious and will occur for NAS sooner with many planets. Consider 12 players in large,dense, that will be 80 planets per player, so with 2 unfriendly neighbours and 1 ally that has to be checked, there could be 50+ planets, that need to be checked.
And fourth there is MM to check many planets, especially as or against SD, because that chaff does not survive minefields well.
Of course the whole problem could be solved by a motivated trade partner dealing enough penscans.
In a game where trading of pen scans is disallowed and with high density, NAS could be a serious disadvantage.
Carn
[Updated on: Sat, 25 September 2004 00:19] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sat, 25 September 2004 10:32 |
|
|
|
Planet density, total number of planets does play but can be argued both ways.
If I overcloak a fleet (or part of one) to 90% and have it in orbit, how close do your penn scanners have to be to see it?
As well I may still intentionally avoid planets with a 97%-98% cloaked fleet so orbital checkers won't see me.
Impossible to see all whether NAS or not in such a game, best can hope for is to randomly see some.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sun, 26 September 2004 01:25 |
|
| Carn |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| multilis wrote on Sat, 25 September 2004 16:32 |
Planet density, total number of planets does play but can be argued both ways.
|
I'm certain that a higher density makes NAS slightly weaker, think of extreme cases:
With only 2 HWs in huge universe there would be no use for pen scans, so NAS would certainly better.
With a planet on every square LY(e.g. 64000 planets in medium), the doubling from NAS would be useless, while it would be impossible to check even every 10nth relevant orbit, so NAS would be serious disadvantage.
But i think with selectable densities, NAS is better than no NAS, though the advantage is smaller with higher densities.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
