Home » Old Game Forums » Bab5v2 team » Tact & Strat
|
| Re: Alcoa & Strat |
Mon, 21 May 2007 05:14   |
|
|
|
| Altruist wrote on Mon, 21 May 2007 02:49 |
Alcoa:
Mmh, what I don't understand in your suggestions about how to attack Alcoa...
|
Did you look at the simulation?
When the attack takes place at Alcoa the ships are still owned by SPOO (transfer occurs after battle).
The crowding is achieved with SPOO, Llort, Pak, Earth, Ipsha, Hyak - still OK if Earth or Ipsha leave (but not both).
On the 2nd turn the ships are Narn & no crowding wanted - that's when the bombers move in.
The plan I suggested works perfectly provided it is accurately followed - I simulated it 10 times.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Alcoa |
Mon, 21 May 2007 12:03 |
|
|
|
| AlexTheGreat wrote on Mon, 21 May 2007 11:14 |
Did you look at the simulation?
When the attack takes place at Alcoa the ships are still owned by SPOO (transfer occurs after battle).
The crowding is achieved with SPOO, Llort, Pak, Earth, Ipsha, Hyak - still OK if Earth or Ipsha leave (but not both).
On the 2nd turn the ships are Narn & no crowding wanted - that's when the bombers move in.
The plan I suggested works perfectly provided it is accurately followed - I simulated it 10 times.
|
All true.
I had problems to see the value of a first attack without bombers, not fully realizing the costs of the Alcoa Ultra and that Alcoa just can't reproduce such an Ultra every year.
O well, now it's too late and the crowding wouldn't had worked due to all ships leaving orbit.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Alcoa |
Mon, 21 May 2007 19:02 |
|
|
|
| Altruist wrote on Mon, 21 May 2007 12:03 |
I had problems to see the value of a first attack without bombers, not fully realizing the costs of the Alcoa Ultra and that Alcoa just can't reproduce such an Ultra every year.
O well, now it's too late and the crowding wouldn't had worked due to all ships leaving orbit.
|
Probably couldn't have built the same US as you say but I'd actually factored in 2 extra BBs (beam & or sapper), 4 different initial US designs & assumed a full Jug base in the 2nd turn. Worst result was 10 lost CCs.
The crowding in the first year was essential to kill the base before the CCs were destroyed. However, had the bombers been there they would have been targetted first & would have all been killed.
As it turns out tho the result would have been terrible since, as you say, both Earth & Ipsha left.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tact & Strat |
Fri, 25 May 2007 10:43 |
|
|
|
In the last turns I realized several things:
1) Fighting BBs with up to weap 14 is possible with high enough numbers of cruisers with weap10. But weap10-CCs have no chance vs weap16-BBs, especially when shields are rendered useless by the powerful phased sappers.
2) Bombing planets with heavy defenses happens best with bombers from several players.
The Player with the lowest gamenumber starts with LBUs (or m80 if nothing else is available), followed by other players with cherries or m80. Inbetween each bombing Stars recalculates the defenses and the next player faces less defenses and gets thru more bombs. Thus I am switching bombers to and fro witht he Narn. Unfortunately my first LBUs will come at a time when the Spoo will be in retreat again.
3) Battlegrid manipulation together with passing to and fro bombers and warships, allows setups where bombers are farthest from the enemy station and warships closest (especially interesting for slow warships)... which can be great when everything works and desaster if not.
4) If we make a combined attack against the Vorlons via gates, we better use shipdesigns which can be transfered AND stacked.
Altogether I think we should keep in mind and discuss a bit more towards the aim that our main warships and bombers of the next generation are of the same design.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tact & Strat |
Sat, 26 May 2007 13:50 |
|
 Skaffen |
 | Senior Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006
Location: Germany | |
|
| Altruist wrote on Fri, 25 May 2007 16:43 |
In the last turns I realized several things:
1) Fighting BBs with up to weap 14 is possible with high enough numbers of cruisers with weap10. But weap10-CCs have no chance vs weap16-BBs, especially when shields are rendered useless by the powerful phased sappers.
|
Yup, but itīs also possible to fight W16 BBs with W14 CCs. Especially if you have RS and rams. Once we have prop 13 though with the EP, thatīs also pretty good. Iīm not sure if Iīll really want to go the BB way. As Iīve mentioned before, Graham in FA has taught me newfound respect for CCs.
| Quote: |
2) Bombing planets with heavy defenses happens best with bombers from several players.
The Player with the lowest gamenumber starts with LBUs (or m80 if nothing else is available), followed by other players with cherries or m80. Inbetween each bombing Stars recalculates the defenses and the next player faces less defenses and gets thru more bombs. Thus I am switching bombers to and fro witht he Narn. Unfortunately my first LBUs will come at a time when the Spoo will be in retreat again.
|
Most definititiously! (one free load of G to whoever can tell me where that one is quoted from without using google...  )
Though inspite of my low player number I am planning to use the Hush-A-Boom as soon as it becomes feasible. Itīs just too good not to use. Costs for the bomb are very low and for my current B17s I need a SFX for every bomber for every warp 9 jump! Talk about expenses... 
| Quote: |
3) Battlegrid manipulation together with passing to and fro bombers and warships, allows setups where bombers are farthest from the enemy station and warships closest (especially interesting for slow warships)... which can be great when everything works and desaster if not.
|
Of course, weīve been getting pretty good at this but theyīre learning.
| Quote: |
4) If we make a combined attack against the Vorlons via gates, we better use shipdesigns which can be transfered AND stacked.
Altogether I think we should keep in mind and discuss a bit more towards the aim that our main warships and bombers of the next generation are of the same design.
|
Yes and no, e.g. I was seriously thinking about using armored BBs, since I made the mistake of not taking RS I might as well make use of it. In FA I crunched the numbers and found that contrary to popular wisdom it was economically sensible to put organic armor on them, though in that case I had quite a high bio level from an MT. Will have to re-calculate that here...
Next thing EP (or whatever other toy some or us might get), not everyone has it, but itīd be stupid not to use it once itīs available (if ever, but Pak are making great progress there).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tact & Strat |
Sat, 26 May 2007 14:34 |
|
|
|
| Skaffen wrote on Sat, 26 May 2007 19:50 |
| Altruist wrote on Fri, 25 May 2007 16:43 |
In the last turns I realized several things:
1) Fighting BBs with up to weap 14 is possible with high enough numbers of cruisers with weap10. But weap10-CCs have no chance vs weap16-BBs, especially when shields are rendered useless by the powerful phased sappers.
|
Yup, but itīs also possible to fight W16 BBs with W14 CCs. Especially if you have RS and rams. Once we have prop 13 though with the EP, thatīs also pretty good. Iīm not sure if Iīll really want to go the BB way. As Iīve mentioned before, Graham in FA has taught me newfound respect for CCs.
|
True. I just wanted to stress the point that especially you and me (with the most weap10-CCs) should try to make heavy and good usage of our fleets BEFORE the VA's weap16-BBs arrive.
About using CCs when BBs are available:
As soon as you start thinking about capacitors, super-comps or jammers... it leads to BBs.
| Skaffen wrote on Sat, 26 May 2007 19:50 |
| Quote: |
4) If we make a combined attack against the Vorlons via gates, we better use shipdesigns which can be transfered AND stacked.
Altogether I think we should keep in mind and discuss a bit more towards the aim that our main warships and bombers of the next generation are of the same design.
|
Yes and no, e.g. I was seriously thinking about using armored BBs, since I made the mistake of not taking RS I might as well make use of it. In FA I crunched the numbers and found that contrary to popular wisdom it was economically sensible to put organic armor on them, though in that case I had quite a high bio level from an MT. Will have to re-calculate that here...
Next thing EP (or whatever other toy some or us might get), not everyone has it, but itīd be stupid not to use it once itīs available (if ever, but Pak are making great progress there).
|
True.
But we really need the ability to stack our ships when we want to make a joint attack. Perhaps it is not necesary that all 4 of us build the same design... but 2-3 should agree at least on 2 main warship-designs: 1 laser-design, 1 missile-design
[Updated on: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:01] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Gaim Attack Fleet |
Sat, 26 May 2007 14:41 |
|
|
|
Eh, as impressive as your approx. 150 CCs are you have gathered around the former Drakh HW... where are the bombers?
Or don't you intend to attack the former Drakh HW?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Tact & Strat |
Sat, 26 May 2007 17:13 |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| Skaffen wrote on Sat, 26 May 2007 19:50 |
| Quote: |
4) If we make a combined attack against the Vorlons via gates, we better use shipdesigns which can be transfered AND stacked.
Altogether I think we should keep in mind and discuss a bit more towards the aim that our main warships and bombers of the next generation are of the same design.
|
Yes and no, e.g. I was seriously thinking about using armored BBs, since I made the mistake of not taking RS I might as well make use of it. In FA I crunched the numbers and found that contrary to popular wisdom it was economically sensible to put organic armor on them, though in that case I had quite a high bio level from an MT. Will have to re-calculate that here...
|
"Popular wisdom" does *not* say that is is *not* "economically sensible to put organic armor on BBs", the armor is not used because it makes BBs too heavy to gate around (without armor around 377kT) and makes them in some cases too heavy with the range2 vs range3 weap in mind. In this game with only IT gates without mass limit the first reason is of course absent ... The second reason might OTOH be of greater importance here since we might be fighting their weap16 with our weap14 ...
Anyway if there is a question the answer would be: personally I think we're better off with BBs ...
| Quote: |
Next thing EP (or whatever other toy some or us might get), not everyone has it, but itīd be stupid not to use it once itīs available (if ever, but Pak are making great progress there).
|
Doing the best I can, and that's prop13 in 3 years ... I have con13 now so I should be getting nothing but elec and elec9 for the EP would (with all succesful trades) 3 years as well ... means I could build EP lambs to give prop13 and the item to teammembers without (of course *small* chance to get the item) ...
All this research means obviously no warfleet in my hands ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Tact & Strat |
Sun, 27 May 2007 12:02 |
|
| mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Skaffen wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 01:50 |
What about that bug about mixed range weapons? Is there a way around it (e.g. given max damage orders) or will the ship always stay at range 3 and not close in?
|
Nope. I am the person who made that bug public knowledge, and I did alot of testing on my own. James M. went through and verified my tests independantly. I might have missed something, but I don't think James would have...
However, reread the bug. The maddening deal is that it doesn't always happen. | mlaub circa 2002 |
Essentially, the deal is this, if you have enough sappage to take down the opponents shields at range 3, then your ships stay at range 3. If your ships do not have enough sappage to eliminate the opponents shields, your ships close to range 2 so that the range 2 beams can finish the shields...
|
-Matt
[Updated on: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:06]
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Tact & Strat |
Mon, 28 May 2007 00:37 |
|
|
|
| mlaub wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 18:25 |
Well...the topic showed up when I hit "unread posts". I assumed that it was a regular post. I did not go browsing through the private channels. Perhaps the moderators could make it invisible? I dunno. Doesn't seem that secure to me if it shows up with the unread function. You should let them know about this.
Frankly, I'd rather not see it either, as it is for the most part a waste of my time to wade through game specific posts.
-Matt
|
No problem mlaub, this forum is supposed to be invisible except to members of our alliance but for some reason is not. We're not really concerned if you (or any other player not involved this game) want to read it.
The problem has already been reported but we believe that one or more unscrupulous players in this game are monitoring it despite the sticky asking not to!
John
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| email-communication |
Sun, 08 July 2007 13:02 |
|
|
|
I am posting this in the strat & tact section because only proper communication allows us our tactical manoeuvres.
Some stats:
Number of emails in my bab5v2-folder: 1364 (that's WITHOUT any game-files).
By now the typical number of emails per turn has risen to: 40 and above
At the moment the game is on hold and nobody knows wether we will see a regen or not. But so far I have already 5 different emails from John alone about orders for the Spoo.
Do I consider this kind of email-traffic fun? No.
Some simple rules:- Nobody needs to confirm orders to everybody. A simple reply to the player who is requesting the orders and confirmation is absolutely sufficient.
- Never mix general information and requested orders into one email, especially not if the orders can be found somewhere in the 28th line.
- Use 1 email for all the orders you request from 1 player (or from several players) instead of half a dozen emails.
- Choose a descriptive and clear subject.
- Even when making a reply it might be helpful to adjust the subject in a way that it is still obvious that it is a reply but now switching to another topic.
- Before pressing REPLY TO ALL stop for a second and think wether this is really needed.
- Before writing an email stop for a second and think wether this could be better posted in this forum.
In general I prefer the forum because it allows a better overview. The information is also much easier accessable in comparison to an email sent 483 emails before.
Emails are good for urgent things like orders or stuff which is relevant only for several days.
The Forum is better for discussion, news, reports.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 2492 - Attacking Abel ASAP? |
Sat, 14 July 2007 19:58 |
|
|
|
Since we're all frustrated with VA strategy or lack of it why don't we set a time scale for attacking Abel?
If the VA are scattered about attacking on several fronts we have a good chance if we can gate 400-500 BBs to Squidcakes with support ships & grid manipulation ships regardless of their tech. They are unlikely to have that sort of strength there, tho it would be really good to scan Squidcakes/Abel if possible (any chance of a few 96% cloaked Galleons?)! If we fail then we cede.
I can start sending my new ships to the gate at Zippy & even pull some back if we are all agreed. They might realise after a few years that we are a bit quieter than expected but maybe not as long as we keep some ships at the front - I doubt the penny will drop quickly.
If we can defeat the VA then I think we would be favourites v the Shadows tho I'm still not sure what happens with the VA alliance if Abel is "orbited" - clearly the Vorlons are defeated according to the rules but can they still attack us, etc.? I'm assuming that the VA members are then independant & are free to either remain so or join us (but not share in victory).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: 2492 - Attacking Abel ASAP? - gating |
Sun, 15 July 2007 23:22 |
|
|
|
I have tested gating losses using non-IT ships between Any/300 gates. All tests involved 2000 BBs to Squidcakes:
From _________ Actual/Test ___ Lost/Damages
Taurus ________ 667/668ly ______ 9.4%/30%
Nada __________ 686/685ly ______ 9.5%/32%
Nada __________ 686/698ly _____ 11.9%/32%
Shannon _______ 731/733ly _____ 11.8%/36%
Dog House _____ 754/756ly _____ 11.3%/38%
Zippy _________ 894/901ly _____ 15.8%/50%
Strangely enough this suggests that the losses to the void through distance is stepped (i.e. similar losses for a range of distance - I did 2 tests on Nada to partly confirm that).
My Proposal:
Pak/SPOO establish a gate at Dog House (move pop-drop to Nada if need be). Pak/SPOO rendezvous there.
Gaim/Llort establish a gate at Shannon but rendezvous first at Zippy before gating to Shannon.
IMO Nada & Taurus are too risky - if we are discovered the whole strategy is lost. I'd much rather risk a few extra lost BBs. The JOAT VAs likely have at least Elec14 by now & maybe better. Who knows when they'll have Elec19 (Nexus).
I will be planet hoping to avoid detection which is why the Gaim/Llort should gather first at Zippy - there's a lot of space otw to Shannon from our shipyards. I strongly suggest that the Pak/SPOO do the same.
In the past, gates have taken 4 years to construct + Steve has to get there first. I will be asking Steve to establish the gate at a planet other than where it will be & changing to the correct planet at the last minute - I don't want the VA to know those locations.
Opinions?
| Micha wrote on Sun, 15 July 2007 08:09 |
So gating from Zippy to Squidcakes? That's almost 900ly and 50% damage for your ships, not to mention the losses to the void, not sure what those would be, Stars! Calculator says 0% but that is not true, there *will* be losses.
I could request a gate at Nada, have been thinking about that from the start of the game, it's red for both SPOO and pak'ma'ra. That's 686ly ... 32% damage ...
Transfer at arrival and the merged fleet can go in. 153ly from Squidcakes to Abel, too late for VA to assemble a counter fleet, even if ours is +/-40% damaged and 10-20% of the 400 ships are lost ...
mch
|
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 18 16:46:27 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
