|
|
|
|
| Re: End game ships |
Mon, 30 December 2002 00:23   |
|
|
|
Greetings all,
This is a very interesting question as there can't be any one answer. The end game is a time in the game where ANYTHING can happen and it becomes a constant struggle of counterdesign. If anything, I have heard the use gatable of Omega Torpedo Nubians with Range 3 Beam Nubians with enough speed and the right Battle Plans can reck havoc against enemy ships, regardless of type they are. Why? Consider that there is a power in numbers... for all that chaff you are building the enemy is building jammed nubians to take your hits, as well as high accuracy torpedo ships. These same ships are 1/2 the cost of yours, but can take on 2 of your ships. His ships can be gated in on cheap starbases, where as your ships require IT gates to get anywhere. His ships, due to their large number, is hitting you on so many fronts that you can't even handle...
I think you can begin to see the picture. But of course... if you design a ship that can take the hits from the range 3 beams but is range 2 with twice the power, or if you are playing a HE... then you ships will not only be the same cost, but will have twice the punch. Or if you came up with a nubian design that takes advantage of the high power and the initiative of a sapper coupled with a good Capital ship design then you could strip the enemy of his shields and use the capital missels to do the rest of the damage, or to even help strip the enemy of his shields along with your beamers (the 1/6th the damage goes into the shields apply there as well... Which can add up if you have enough of those ships). Though some WM's can even get dreadnaughts to match the power of nubians and can just rampage through the game with their superior power... All in all it depends on the situation.
It is for that reason I belive the mix and match theory to Stars! Late game strategy fits best.
Just my 2cnts,
Stalwart
"Attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."- Sun TzuReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: End game ships |
Mon, 30 December 2002 02:34 |
|
|
|
Part of the reason why I post questions that have no singular answers is because it brings out arguements over which is better and why. The reasons behind what we do is very handy for learners as they get both technique and reasoning. Sometimes this is very important. I spent ages wondering why the hell anyone would play a -F race because bar the obvious disadvantage no-one explained the advantages.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: End game ships |
Mon, 30 December 2002 22:24 |
|
|
|
Greetings all,
| Quote: |
Part of the reason why I post questions that have no singular answers is because it brings out arguements over which is better and why. The reasons behind what we do is very handy for learners as they get both technique and reasoning. Sometimes this is very important. I spent ages wondering why the hell anyone would play a -F race because bar the obvious disadvantage no-one explained the advantages.
|
True indeed, then maybe a more specified approach to the question would be in order. For instance, the only games I know of that have no mineral Restrictions are if you are in a Max Min game, or if you have an AR race.  Also, the only time you have restrictions on speed are in games larger than a Small. Games of such magnitude usually end before or slightly after the BB Era... games of Medium and Larger (though I don't know why you would go larger) not only tend to have different aspects to them, but completely different strategies.
In other words I guess I misunderstood the poll/question. I shall sit idle until a more direct approach to the question arises, and attempt to aid others on how to systematically approach the problem to attain a detailed answer that is easy to understand (notice the "attempt" part of that  ).
Until then,
Stalwart
[spell check by Ron ]
[Updated on: Mon, 30 December 2002 22:57] by Moderator
"Attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."- Sun TzuReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: End game ships |
Tue, 31 December 2002 08:37 |
|
|
|
| Stalwart wrote on Mon, 30 December 2002 22:24 |
Greetings all,
True indeed, then maybe a more specified approach to the question would be in order. For instance, the only games I know of that have no mineral Restrictions are if you are in a Max Min game, or if you have an AR race. Also, the only time you have restrictions on speed are in games larger than a Small. Games of such magnitude usually end before or slightly after the BB Era... games of Medium and Larger (though I don't know why you would go larger) not only tend to have different aspects to them, but completely different strategies.
|
I can quote a singular exception to the above (actually a variation.) Xdude's "Center Warz" game featured a remapped galaxy (3100x3100) and a neutral AR "Mineral Dudes" race that controlled all HWs and gave minerals to all the players.
Basically a max tech, almost unlimited build, fest. And only one IT race....
My observation was that balanced fleets were generally what was fielded, though various designs within the general designations of "beamer", "torp ship", etc. were preferred by the different races.
My particular take (and followed my general game theme) as leader of the "Icky Things" [an IS race] was essentially to build slightly weaker ships in terms of firepower - but building *lots* of ships. My ARM Nubian only carried 3 slots of ARMS (compared to 5-6 of some classes fielded by opponents.) My beamer had 2 slots of AMPs, 3 slots of Caps, jamming, 2 slots shields (I had RS LRT), and a pile of deflectors. By the latter part of the game I had also started on a gatable Omega Torp Nubian class since my gate access with the IT was going away and I wanted a mobile reserve to defend my empire. Also, my chaff had a mini-gun -- expensive, but highly effective to aid sweeping. Total cap ship count at game end was ~38K. 50%/50% balance between beamers and missile/torp ships. About 150K of chaff - but it generally wouldn't last long in any large battle - about one round.
There were a few "unbalanced fleet" battles outside of those where one side was massively outnumbered and crushed. In both cases, outnumbered fleets of "fast" (speed 2.5) missile/torp ships brutalized larger enemy beamer stacks using "retreat fire" tactics. The beamers in both cases having insufficient chaff for the full battle - or having lost the chaff in a previous battle.
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: End game ships |
Fri, 02 May 2003 12:24 |
|
|
|
I like a mix of 75-80% beamers nubs and the rest missile Nubs ++ lots of chaff if I'm an IT. If not, then beamer Nubs and chaff since I like to use gates.
"There is no substitute for Integrity"Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: End game ships |
Sat, 03 May 2003 16:23 |
|
 Sotek |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 167
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
I'm in a game where I effectively am restrictionless on my ships, actually.
Turns out I'm using ships that are a mix of torps and missiles to comprise about 80% of my combat arm.
The other 20% are pretty standard Nub beamers; being too missile-heavy would allow for a few ugly potential counterdesigns, and the beamers can ensure chaff will die. (Also, they can sweep for my mainfleet.)
And of course, I have chaff, because you *always* need chaff once the heavy missiles are out there.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
1 / 3%
Ummm, sure! 
I do FREESTYLE math.
Re: End game ships
Really, if the option for all three was there I'd pick it, But because it isn't, you must think.
