Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 12:50

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 22:07 Expensive and not particularly good for heavy DNs that need to plow through minefields. WTF? I think you have this backwards, NRSE is a RW points mine, and ramscoops engines take more damage from minesfields. I think you meant to say always take NRSE

Exactly.

As WM I'd take NRSE and prop expensive and as said never use the IS-10 but the FM instead. Well, I *would* use the IS-10 on my smaller fleet of arma DNs since they need it for movement and they're a bit too precious to blow them up going warp10.

Also saves you the research after prop12 (until you *really* want terra at prop16), and having expensive prop hurts less since with the WM bonus you can use the lesser engines on your ships. Last game as WM I used DDL7's for my (interim) BBs, as non-WM I'd normally use the AD8.

Still, keeping rams fits in with the WM speed bonus as well, since the ramscoop engines are always one step behind their NRSE at same tech level. However I'd prefer the RW points and stopping prop research at 12 for a long time.
Heh, if you're lucky your SD enemy next door will mount the prop16 ramscoop on his MMLs. Happy hunting!

mch

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 03:50

I occasionally do leave out IFE, and CE pays more than IFE sucks. I also don't mind any amount of redundant micro.

Chaffsweeping with no IFE and CE = quadruple ouch!

IIRC without IFE scout chaff does not have enough fuel to go warp10 on it's own. You'll to build (ok, the cheaper engines pay back here) and use more chaff to sweep the same field. You'll run into fleet# issues more often. All you chaff makes it true and your main fleet decides not to move.

Of course you can play without chaffsweeping ...

CE is not only adding more unnecessary MM (in my last game the late game turns already took +5 hrs, no need to add more!) but also limits your options, rules out perfectly planned and timed attacks (alone or with allies), etc.

mch

[Updated on: Tue, 17 June 2008 05:17]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 11:30

Did you miss the word "occasionally"?

No. Though I must admit I focussed more on the CE. Bad BAD memories.

mch

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 00:55

Gates are not around when you're on the offense. Guess what you want to be doing as a WM?

If that is the case, you are doing it wrong. In any successful push, you should have enough pop and metal to insta gate a planet the next turn. While the WM has to slog through normal space with it's DN's, the nub race is gating in reinforcements to its freshly conquered worlds.

I even use red worlds if necessary, although that takes a few years unless it was an enemy planet and had enough left over fact...

Quote:

Also, WHAT EXPENSE IN IRON? DNs are much, much cheaper per torp than Nubs.

He might have meant that a nub building race will be building out his metal more evenly. Or, he could be saying you can build 2:1 nubs vs DN's This may be true, depends on designs.

WM's DN's are by far the best missile platform in the game, apples to apples. However, one thing that is tough to calculate is mobility. I'll take mobility every time.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Soobie wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 06:08

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 19:37 Expensive and not particularly good for heavy DNs that need to plow through minefields. Interesting. Almost more than any other PRT I would say that WM enjoy the most benefit from the IFE/NRSE combo.

Definitely in the BC era. Not so much in the BB/DN era. End game with prop23, its a easy win.

Overall, my vote is for IFE/NRSE combo on a WM.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Aha. Got you...

You need a warp 8 or faster engine to be able to get speed 2.25 with only one slot devoted to jets. Hence no FM or DDL7.

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 19 June 2008 09:08

Aha. Got you... You need a warp 8 or faster engine to be able to get speed 2.25 with only one slot devoted to jets. Hence no FM or DDL7.

I don't have the numbers at hand, but who says I want 2.25? Or only want to use one slot for jets? I'll probably be fighting beamer FM/DDL7 CCs anyway, and those will most likely have 2 jets (using the two smaller slots, or the larger back slot).

mch

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

If I was laughing at you I'd be doing it in PM, not out in public ... I'm just not that mean (Actually, I am that mean, just not this time)

I'm still not seeing why WM would want more than Prop5 until Cons13

Not sure why you would need to go faster than 1.75 with BCs? Unless you want it for R2 I suppose. But BC probably shouldn't be going with R2 because it is assured of first move against CCs and FFs, so R3 CCs (and FFs!) will be a bit diabolical. Better to put the resources into W10/C10/P5 and get FM Collie(/sapper) BCs with a couple of jets for 1.75 board speed. Still have a couple of slots left for 'whatever' ... maybe comps so those damn CCs don't *always* shoot first, but seems a waste of germ to me.

(Personally I like BC as a Jihad platform too, but that's a wide open debate ... and who cares about big engines for Jihads? )

But, jokes aside, for WM give me W10 before P9 any day. I'd be pretty surprised if anyone with NRSE would put more than DDL7 on BC unless it was for a specialised purpose like a hunter/sweeper of some sort ... even then I *may* be thinking "why not use DDL7 with 2 slots of jets?"

(What's all this talk of preferring FM to DDL7 for BC and WM I hear you ask me? How many decent engines out there don't use germ? ... which brings us to the whole "ramscoop vs non-ramscoop" argument )

Wait ... what happened to nubs vs DNs?

[Updated on: Thu, 19 June 2008 06:07]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 03:14

We're talking about different eras. You're talking about BCs in the CA era, while I'm talking about BCs in the BB era.

Against BBs you use DNs.

mch

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Against BBs you use DNs. mch

Interestingly enough not always, in a recent game (teams of 2 players) a WM has rather sucessfully kept my fleets of BBs from stomping his ally by gating in large numbers of Zaps (R2 light battlecruisers with 2 1/4 move).

As it is 2 jumps to the front I suspect that his DNs just look a bit heavy to get there. Also as he started building before he had con16 shield stacking may be an issue.

Put it this way we have been expecting DNs but havent seen any - and the BCs seem to be doing well.

[Updated on: Sat, 21 June 2008 04:07]

Report message to a moderator

joseph wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 15:47

Quote: Against BBs you use DNs. Interestingly enough not always, ...

That's why I put a at the end of my sentence, which seems to have disappeared in the quote ...

This will indeed depend from game to game. If you're fighting against an econ race as WM you're probably behind in (con) tech. Fighting against IT you'll probably be facing a larger missile fleet. Etc.

The actual design (move, jamming, ...) of the BC will depend on all of that, vs CCs or vs BBs, vs mainly beamers or mainly missile ships ...

mch

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator