Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Wed, 21 December 2005 18:01]

Report message to a moderator

BET does not make old crap outright better than new shiny stuff, just less worse. If we talk of AMP platform then Nubian is clearly too good HE beamer hull compared to alternatives. Opponents beam reduced to 15% makes their AMPs fire feel like from Mark IV! HE can build 3 x more BET AMP Nubs than BET AMP BBs from his boranium and these BBs still lose one against one.

Large regen shield stack of standard AMP nubians is not so clear winner with BET. I mean for HE it looks most reasonable, but for people with better ability to maneuver ... there are other interesting considerations like Streaming Pulverisers.

BB-s are generally easier to counter and destroy but also cheaper to build resource-wise than BET Nubs so various support ships can be thrown together quicker.

BET BB missile ships may be quite reasonable when people around you consider having range 1 beamers. Can be cost efficient if it manages to avoid these beams.

Finally ... various counters may often end up with mixed fleets. When heavily mixed fleets are likely then having some Muthas on your main line beamer nubians may make lot better sense than usual.

Report message to a moderator

Okay, I am now in a position to field the first Nubians. Some stats about the game first:
11 players, 4 teams. 3 of 3 and 1 of 2. I am in the two player team, playing HE, my ally is playing IT. Our main enemies are playing WM, SS and CA - quite scary. Oh, and everyone has BET.

I will probably reach Nubians next turn. Tech will then be
Energy 23 (no, I didn't take RS )
Weapons 26
Prop 16 (NRSE, no IFE)
Con 26
Elec 14
Bio 8

We are the first to reach Nubians, so we are free to design. The enemy is fielding several designs of BBs and DNs up to Armageddons. No really big ships yet, but I heard they will be running out of minerals sooner or later The enemy has good tech (Battle Nexus!), but no Nubians up to now as far as we know.
I (HE) will build Beam ships, my ally will build Missile Ships and Chaff - we have distributed our minerals accordingly.

My first draft looks like that: (Numbers are slots)

Beam Nubian (HE):
Nubian
1 Interspace-10 (I10)
2 Complete Phase Shields (CPS)
1 Big Mutha Cannon (BMC)
2 Anti-Matter Pulverizer (AMP)
2 Flux Capacitor (HE item, +20% firepower for beams)
1 Jammer 20
1 Maneuvering Jet
3 Beam Deflector

Any improvements?
1 more Jammer 20 and one less Beam Deflector?
Range 3 Beams and Sappers instead?

This is a first draft from my partner:
Arm Nubian (IT):
Nubian
1 Interspace-10 (CE)
2 Elephant / Complete Phase Shields if available (no RS)
1 Superlatanium
4 Armageddon
3 Battle Super Computer (BSC)
1 Jammer 20 (or Jammer 30, probably available at that time)
1 Beam Deflector

Comments?
Use Armor?
More Jammers?
More Deflectors?
Fewer Shields?

Thanks in Advance,
Andreas / wizard

[Updated on: Mon, 20 February 2006 17:51]

Report message to a moderator

First... why you think your opponents dont read it here?

Decision what to build depends on what you fight with and what you got. If there was ULTIMATE stuff available then the game was boring. So buid with what it is cheapest to kill them. "Cheapest" here means "it costs least" of your limiting metal and still does the thing. So ... what i mean ... it is good time to export your planet info into text file, suck it into spreadheet and count what minerals you have.

With BET it seems that ironium is the limit. Use less torpedoes on Missile boat to build more nubs. Thats why IT is not so useful in nubian era, most cost-efficent stuff is also gateable with 300/500.

Low electronics ... if you build nubians flat out then also count your germanium. Maybe not so much with BET but usually germanium is limiting factor for nubians at low electronics. You fight SS? Maybe consider researching some electronics then. Jammer 20 ... keep that one slot just have some chaff with. Switch to Jammer 30 when able.

Against BBs/Dreads ... range 3 beamers seem to be a thinkable alternative, jets are ok there for 2.25 movement, engages round 1 and reaches last row at round 2 so it can hunt various SS nuisances.

Switch to range 2 if you see they got nubs too, hopefully you got J 30 also then. Just that jets are waste to use on range 2 nub ... range 2 never catches something that really wants to run away. Better use more deflectors.

6th Flux btw gives too little improvement, i am not sure if it is worth to equip at all.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 20 February 2006 22:26]

Report message to a moderator

wizard wrote on Mon, 20 February 2006 16:40

Beam Nubian (HE): Nubian 1 Interspace-10 (I10) 2 Complete Phase Shields (CPS) 1 Big Mutha Cannon (BMC) 2 Anti-Matter Pulverizer (AMP) 2 Flux Capacitor (HE item, +20% firepower for beams) 1 Jammer 20 1 Maneuvering Jet 3 Beam Deflector

This is almost my favorite "first nub" HE design, less RS, Jammer30 and either a scoop or the transtar10. What is your bora situation? Probably good enough not to worry about the 2 stacks of Amps w/BET I bet...

Quote:

Any improvements? 1 more Jammer 20 and one less Beam Deflector?

Yes. I usually field a single stack of Jammer30, just to force the other players to either go no jammers, or go for missiles. I make about 1000, then switch designs if any counters are being produced. I think you would be wise, though, to put 2 stacks of jam20's on if your enemy is using Arms.

Quote:

Range 3 Beams and Sappers instead?

I wouldn't go there, unless you are trying to deal with a specific design, they have a SD dampner, or are making specialty ships. The BMC/AMP design will be so much lighter then enemy DNs and BB's, and at 2.5 sp...even if it takes an extra round the extra damage will make up for it. Plus, you are going against teams. Nothing says gonzo like hitting 3 different stacks of ships in the same round with the BMC.

You better check on team member battle placement, too.

Quote:

This is a first draft from my partner: Arm Nubian (IT): Nubian 1 Interspace-10 (CE) 2 Elephant / Complete Phase Shields if available (no RS) 1 Superlatanium 4 Armageddon 3 Battle Super Computer (BSC) 1 Jammer 20 (or Jammer 30, probably available at that time) 1 Beam Deflector

OK...just me, but lose the BD's for sure. If beams get within range, they are probably dead anyway. Add enough shields/jammers/armor to make sure this ship is less attractive then the beamers. If you need to fill slots, make sure you get enough OT's on this baby to at least hit 2.25 sp. At the very least, you can then use the ships in a kaufman retrograde manuever (retreat, fire on any, orders). Using a screen of chaff, or chaff and chaff killa sacrificial nubs, you can kill an enormous amount of ships and then retreat.

Real life example of a kaufman retrograde. PlayerA decides to attack me. He has hundreds of Arm DNs and 100 odd beamers, BC's? (can't remember the exact make and counts). He sends his ships toward first planet. I send out cloaked Nub minelayers behind him, and gather my nearest Arm reserve fleet. He hits first planet and I start laying mines and cut off retreat, my ships still heading towards his fleet. He ignores my minefields. I Jump in chaff everywhere for easy access. A few turns later, he hits next planet and I meet him with chaff, chaff killas, and Arm nubs set to retreat. He loses chaff, and Beamers go up in smoke. He realizes his mistake, 4 turns to late. He can't get away, can't sweep before I hit his fleet again, several times. Even a SFD didn't help him. Killed em all.

Lesson I am trying to impart, speed kills the other guy.

Hope this was helpful
-Matt

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 21 February 2006 03:02]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

wizard wrote on Mon, 20 February 2006 23:40

Okay, I am now in a position to field the first Nubians ... Oh, and everyone has BET.

BET somewhat changes AMP nub design (much higher bora demand), but OTOH your HE has probably quite high mine eff. Anyway I wouldn't spend too much bora on AMPs. IMO it would be wise to look for alternatives: BMC (additional bonus against lots of tokens) as the main beamer, and high init&speed megaD+sapper design (chaff-shredder, last-line hitter, sapper...) as the main support. I'd also wait for jammer-30 before building nubs in numbers. Your heavy IS-10 as a main engine doesn't allow successfull usage of R1 Streaming pulverizer (not guaranteed to move last). Maybe use QJ-5 and OTs to get enough battle speed with that design?

Despite the gateability is not an issue with the missile nub, I'd still suggest using less missiles. 2 slots of Arm, 2 slots of jammers-30, 2-3 slots of BSC, 2 slots shields, enough OTs to get speed 2.5, rest deflectors. Gives more defense for used iron. And it is the last design, no mods thereafter. Stacks big time, doesn't fire first, but who cares for that with so much defenses on it?!

BTW I wouldn't build beamer nubs in numbers until I see nubs of other teams. With the (predictedly) intense usage of BMC I'd also suggest keeping the number of designs low. So you start with the design that will be usable even after they show up (megaD+sapper?), build just enough of them to get the upper hand over existing BBs/DNs, and use them ASAP. If you destroy just 10% of their planets with them, will that make you win more than 10% easier.

It's hard to predict how the game will proceed, but IMO you're in quite good situation: first to get nubs, lots of minerals to build them. Just make sure you'll not have those minerals stolen by the SS.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Thanks for your answers. Just to answer some questions:
- Yes, there are enough minerals of all kinds. Most planets can build for several years.
- I have to build some ships now, as the enemy is attacking and we have no up-to-date fleets yet. I think I'll go for a bigger stack of beamers, accompanied by ARM Nubians, Chaff and some auxiliary ships.
- Matt, the Beamer Nubian design is clearly inspired by you - I built my first Nubians ever while I was allied to you
- I don't think my enemies will read here - it's not a SAH game, it's a group of friends who are just playing one game per year, and I am the only one up to now who has stepped to SAH...

Andreas / wizard

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 13:32

Quote: Possibly drop 1 slot of CPS for an extra slot of deflectors I could be wrong, but believe you are maxing out at 9 deflectors.

Deflectors don't max out, not like jammers do. Each deflector reduced damage by 10%. You can go upto ALL slot deflectors and one slot for weapons. (yes, I've seen suchs nubs)

mch

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 13:32

Personally, while these nubs look great against beamers, imo they don't save chaff against suicidal BB attack (with battleboard manipulation they can hit even retreating chaff), and get eaten by retreating missile boats. What am I missing?

Why would those nubs be saving chaff? That's not their task, you have specialized anti-chaff, and anti-anti-chaff and anti-anti-anti-chaff, ... to do so. But this thread is not for discussing those tactics, and that discussion has already been done (over and over again ).

mch

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 12:32

I could be wrong, but believe you are maxing out at 9 deflectors.

You are
Deflectors just keep going. Can have 10 or 11 stacks if you wish.
Each stack reduces the enemy firepower to 0.729 (or increases your d.p. by 37% if you wish to look at it that way - but that is probably where the maxing confusion comes in, because they sound like capacitors if you quote it that way).

Quote:

Since BET pays double for w26 anti-matter pulveriser, I'd be looking at other options.

Hence the BMC, which was already mentioned.
Not saying use BMC or use AMP.
I'm just saying that whatever final R2 design you come up with, lose 1 stack of CPS for a BD.
MD is different. Needs different components (jets, sometimes comps for anti-chaff work, often with sappers as well) and has a lot less defence as a result.

...

Quote:

Personally, while these nubs look great against beamers, imo they don't save chaff against suicidal BB attack (with battleboard manipulation they can hit even retreating chaff), and get eaten by retreating missile boats. What am I missing?

Quite right. Missing nothing.
That's the disadvantage of any R2 or R1 ship and why it becomes tempting to have some R3 speed 2.25 ships, or even 2.5 which can also retreat fire against R2 ships.
So whereas MD is usually just a wate of Bora (except for chaff killers), it might well become useful against certain BET designs.
But the fast R3 beam is more a specific ship for a specific enemy tactic, or two.
If you build your standard R2 beamer first, and the enemy goes for fast missile ships to counter you, then I'd say he was in more trouble than you are.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 21 February 2006 14:12]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

wizard wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 09:51

- Yes, there are enough minerals of all kinds. Most planets can build for several years.

I checked some nubian designs with BET and your tech. Looks like the bora will still be the first limiting factor for beamer nub building, with germ (some of it used already for factories) the second, and iron, because of BET's double hull cost (~250 iron for hull, IS-10, shields, jammers and deflectors), the third.

There is no means to decrease cost of AMP and hull, but with the germ and iron you have a solution. Just going from elec-14 to elec-17 would decrease the germ cost for a heavyD+sapper nub from ~290 germ to ~250, and iron cost from ~250 to ~225. If your IT ally would transfer his unused bora to you, you could still use 6 AMPs (cost ~340 bora) for your main-line beamer. Those would pack double punch, compared to BMC designs. However in resources they'd cost almost 1k each, so that could become the limiting factor, because you need them yesterday.

Interesting twist, that game with BET. Let us please know, how it will unfold.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 01:47

Those would pack double punch, compared to BMC designs.

Last time I ran the numbers, the fact that the BMC fires before Amps, every time, helped matters in certain situations. Plus, the multi stack hits can be a huge factor. The other thing to consider is that any BB or DN hull would have a higher initial init then a Amp armed Nub, but perhaps not the BMC. Could make a diff, and without having to add computers.

Wizard needs to balance all the parameters carefully before jumping to a conclusion.

Quote:

Interesting twist, that game with BET. Let us please know, how it will unfold.

I don't see any reason to play this type of game, other than to give a WM an advantage. Other than WM, I haven't thought of any particular PRT advantage. Anyone see any other major advantages?

Also, I would probably be fielding Doom DN's as the WM, to make full use of the BET, and extra missiles for chaff absorption. You can always make a ARM design that shoots afterwards.

Hopefully the WM doesn't ever get the MPS. A WM with MPS and BET is a nightmare waiting to happen. It's so fun to have invisible, fully jammed, hugely armored and shielded missile boats that can overcloak the rest of the fleet.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Wed, 22 February 2006 14:03]

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 20:29

I don't see any reason to play this type of game, other than to give a WM an advantage. Other than WM, I haven't thought of any particular PRT advantage. Anyone see any other major advantages?

Other PRTs that receive advantage from such a game setting beside WM are AR, IT, SS and SD. IT and SD deserve imo no advantages, however WM, AR and SS deserve some.

Generally ... its all the same Stars! game just slightly different. Cost efficency of designs has some interesting new twists.

BET slows it down early by forcing to get 1 more level of tech in most fields before you GO. OTOH old designs do not lose their cost efficency so abruptly with BET so you need not to redesign so often if you like to fight. BET also makes late game utility somewhat more expensive. Lower cost efficency gap between BBs and nubians is not so bad. Weapons are most important tech to the end ... as contrast to without BET when ... W16 C26 was better tech than W26 C16.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 14:06

Other PRTs that receive advantage from such a game setting beside WM are AR, IT, SS and SD. IT and SD deserve imo no advantages, however WM, AR and SS deserve some.

What are the decisive advantages for AR, IT, SS and SD? Can't imagine that they would be as good as the BC/DN advantage or early DD barbarian horde strategy, in combination with the -25% weap cost...

If you mean unlimited mins for AR...yea, sure, I suppose, if they actually survive to the end game. I'm no AR expert, but I'd imagine that BET can only hurt the miner ramp, cause issues if at war early. I'd guess it would generally make the race fairly tough to play. Not like it is an easy race to begin with.

Quote:

BET also makes late game utility somewhat more expensive. Lower cost efficency gap between BBs and nubians is not so bad.

Urrr, and if you think that, then you must agree that the DN takes on a whole new perspective. Only the WM has it. Hence my statement about it being the only "major advantage". Is that not correct? what other "major" advantage would be out there?

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 23:25

What are the decisive advantages for AR, IT, SS and SD? Can't imagine that they would be as good as the BC/DN advantage or early DD barbarian horde strategy, in combination with the -25% weap cost...

BET simply causes the early and midgame races to compete better, thats why i suggested IT, SS and SD.
Yes, WM is most early/midgame oriented and so it receives Major advantage comparing to others.
Whats so wrong about it? Sounds lot more fun game if WM is the king of the board. Where was it written that JOAT, IT, IS, and especially SD must rule since CA is banned? WM seems weak in games i have been ... actually last time i lost game to WM was because it was 2 WMs+AR allied in a small 8 player game, plus they got MPS from MT. One of the WMs was hosting it and he was actually more skilled player than me back then. I myself always think that "OK next game i try WM again but not in this one!"

Quote:

If you mean unlimited mins for AR...yes, sure, I suppose, if they actually survive to the end game. I'm no AR expert, but I'd imagine that BET can only hurt the miner ramp, cause issues if at war early. I'd guess it would generally make the race fairly tough to play. Not like it is an easy race to begin with.

AR...? My AR was usually the tech leader when still 4th-5th with resources. Biggest BET bonuses ... go to the tech leader. Things ... like cheaper docks / medium freighters leave some minerals to build a DD or CA or toss up better orbital. All it makes initial years easier for AR. Without BET AR waits to turn 35 then builds C12 remote robots. With BET the C7 robot is as cost-efficent as C12 (or even better) and the mini miner hull is cheaper than without BET so advantages: AR may start earlier to invest into the miners and AR got to invest less to have competive minerals.

I overall usually choose weak PRTs ... like AR, SS, WM or PP to keep game competive and interesting for me. Winning with weak PRT is lot more fun and losing feels not so bad. SS and AR have done very well but with WM i have had lower luck than with PP. Probably its my fault that its too weak PRT for me. Sorry.

Report message to a moderator