Home World Forum: The Academy » NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Wed, 27 April 2005 17:07

iztok

Commander

Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe

Hi!

Kotk wrote on Wed, 27 April 2005 17:07

... NAS starts to be quite serious disadvantage to not-JOATs later ...

That's what I'd like to discuss Deal

. It is nice to spy on your neighbour's orbits Cool

, but it isn't nice to have max possible detection range to an 98% cloaked fleet only 2% of 1224 LY (Nub with full Peerless) or 24 LY Shocked

. Knowing my opponent has pen-scanners I'd produce more overcloakers and play accordingly Sneaky

. I'd also need to cloak my fleets in orbits only to about 90% to make them invisible to him most of the time, thus making his every attack even bigger gamble it is usually Furious

. Besides, pen scanners can be bought Yes

, double scan range can be not

(if there's no IS OFC Wink

).
Comments please?
BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Wed, 27 April 2005 17:18]

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Wed, 27 April 2005 21:58

Kotk

Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003

Ok lets discuss then ... first i see you took my "later" as "very late in game". Deal

I meant it in the context of "morphing after turn 40". Especially if morphing to AR or IS. SS is OK with NAS. Example: Idea

It truely helps if the ultras that AR builds everywhere got penscanning.

Main advantage of advanced scanners falls to era after tech 10 electronics and before nubians. That is when there SS is invisible anyway and rest got no real overcloakers. People without penscanners are in strategic disadvantage there if compared to folk with penscanners. Orbits hide and one cant check all, so war is bigger gamble for them.

Sure ... if there are piles of penscanner sellers around then 100 rw points + double scanner range is nice to have. wOOt 2

So ... people take all NAS there are plenty of penscanners for sale anyway? Wink

I did not get that "bigger gamble than usual" part. Confused

So against AS opponent one use 5% of his military budget to achieve 90% cloaking of his fleet. OTOH against NAS one need no orbital cloak at all. May be few to blind opponent gift dolphin galleons. Rest of that cloaking budget can be used for 98% cloaked missions. Wheres the biggest gamble? Rolling Eyes

You seriously say that people build fully filled peerless nubs? Surprised

Never seen one. Confused

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Thu, 28 April 2005 04:43

iztok

Commander

Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe

Hi!

Kotk wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 03:58

first i see you took my "later" as "very late in game".

My mistake. I had in mind "very late", max tech actually. I'm currently in the "100 turn forced gen game", where most of the players will have tech maxxed, and plenty of minerals. For such game condition I've been wondering what makes more sense: NAS or no NAS.

Quote:

So against AS opponent one use 5% of his military budget to achieve 90% cloaking of his fleet. OTOH against NAS one need no orbital cloak at all.

But more OCs to cloak fleets in space. You have the point here though.

Quote:

You seriously say that people build fully filled peerless nubs? Surprised

Never seen one. Confused

That was meant as max POSSIBLE. No wonder you haven't seen it, is expensive as hell, and does only one thing. But facing LOTS of cloaked fleets, from LOTS of planets very close, how would you play?
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Thu, 28 April 2005 07:07

PricklyPea

Lieutenant

Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005

If you could choose NAS or no NAS without any difference in race cost which would you choose?

I think I would go for NAS since AS does not give early penscanners (most useful for initial scouting) and NAS bonus range detection is very useful.

Actually, this is why in my mod, I changed NAS to only give 1.5 range bonus and also changed scanners around to give early penscanners and that end game there max range for NAS and AS scanners would be about the same.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Thu, 28 April 2005 17:34

Kotk

Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003

iztok wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 11:43

I'm currently in the "100 turn forced gen game", where most of the players will have tech maxxed, and plenty of minerals. For such game condition I've been wondering what makes more sense: NAS or no NAS.

Yes. I did boom IS in discussion of that game. Both testbeds i tried got max tech. I havent played in jumpstart game for some years. The universe there announced was too big for my taste. Sad

In cooperation-oriented game... NAS makes good sense. Razz

Someone probably has no NAS ... there are probably even tachylons for sale. I think that someone known to be tachylonless has hard time there anyway ... NAS or no. Very Happy

Quote:

But facing LOTS of cloaked fleets, from LOTS of planets very close, how would you play?

What such a small fleet do? Rolling Eyes

If it do nothing then why to worry about it much? Doing something major against someone is not so easy with small fleets. The only thing that can be considered "big" so late in game is destroying a major fleet. Cool

Rest of it is optional MM. Nod

Whenever something does something small to me... they turn visible! Once one turns visible i can do something (even smaller) to it. Then it continue being visible until i can destroy it. Chaff-pinging ... also these "close planets" there reveal stuff. Easier to say than do ... MM hell, but economically meaningless, chaff costs 3 cents so late in game.

Covering meaningful territories in huge with anti-98% scanning is too hard without tachylons, NAS or no. You are correct of course that its about 3-4 times cheaper with NAS.

In context of said jumpstart... taking over some planet early (with tons of minerals on floor) can be of course considered quite interesting task. In that light i would had joined that game with advanced scanner IS anyway. Wink

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Thu, 28 April 2005 18:04

Kotk

Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003

PricklyPear wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 14:07

I think I would go for NAS since AS does not give early penscanners (most useful for initial scouting) and NAS bonus range detection is very useful.

Such opinion is why i like SS so lot. Nod

SS biggest weakness they say that "its relative weak and can not hide its planets". How so? Hiding planets is piece of cake against some NAS race with its double range no-pen scanners. Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Thu, 28 April 2005 19:02

mlaub

Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA

Kotk wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 16:34

iztok wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 11:43

Yes. I did boom IS in discussion of that game. Both testbeds i tried got max tech. I havent played in jumpstart game for some years. The universe there announced was too big for my taste.

I would have gone for pen scans. It sucks both ways, but worse if you can't see noncloaked fleets around planets IMO. You can make up for the double scanner part with 4x scanner ships, but tough to make up for no pen scans without sending chaff to each enemy planet in reach, every turn.

Quote:

In cooperation-oriented game... NAS makes good sense. Razz

Risky though. I understand that you couldn't pick your teammates in that game. Sometimes allies don't deliver what you want. Sad

-Matt

Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Thu, 28 April 2005 19:42

Kotk

Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003

mlaub wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 02:02

Quote:

In cooperation-oriented game... NAS makes good sense. Razz

Risky though. I understand that you couldn't pick your teammates in that game. Sometimes allies don't deliver what you want. Sad

Yes. Random allies is major gamble. I did not join ... but i did pair of testbeds for it ... both advanced scanner IS races. Safe way to ensure that:
1) someone delivers exactly what is needed to win it.
2) hes in my team. Nod

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAS or no-NAS late game? (split from New Game Idea: Chrysalis)

Fri, 29 April 2005 04:50

iztok

Commander

Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe

Hi!

Kotk wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 01:42

I did a pair dozens of testbeds Wink

. Most with advanced scanners. The benefit of them is they get instant scan on close planets after the 100 turns, and that's what I missed the most with races with NAS. Those needed to invest lots in scouts, just to find out what and who is in their neighborhood. Sad

Anyway I agree with your pro-IS arguments. It is the close second PRT I'd chose for this game. Only the fourth strongest, but with pen-scanners, gates, tachions and speed-bumps immediattely, and orgy a bit later, the best ally anybody could wish. Nod

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	What good is PPS?
Next Topic:	Bombing Bug

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Sat May 04 21:29:58 EDT 2024