How many unit types you use?

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by Minute Mirage
All this talk about PBEM tactics makes me sad that I never got to test Flubber in a battle in Classic Game 1. Then again, my superior economy had already assured me victory so the rest would just have been a formality...

Methinks the gauntlet hath been cast!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Minute Mirage
All this talk about PBEM tactics makes me sad that I never got to test Flubber in a battle in Classic Game 1. Then again, my superior economy had already assured me victory so the rest would just have been a formality...

I don't recall the game. Did we finish or was it one of the many I had to quit when I left PBEMing?

hmmm-- I found in my games that I lost, I was generally outbuilt, out-teched or out-diplomatted. I generally did well on the tactical side of things

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ka Plewy

Methinks the gauntlet hath been cast!

It can be cast all he wanted and my interest in the game and in a good opponent might carry me through the first 20 turns. You can play early or late when turns take 2-10 minutes.

But the reason I quit PBEMs hasn't changed. I simply did not and do not have enough time to play correctly. My opponents in my last few games can attest that I played pretty crappy-- I left bases rioting, forgot to kill worms and made numberous other elementary mistakes since I was simply rushing my turns just to get them done.

Against good human opposition, to play well, you NEED to

1. Patrol every troop that can patrol EVERY turn

2. Check on your opponent's build and tech every turn

3. View every part of your empire

4. Take meticulous notes-- thats where fell short big time. If your opponent has a new tech and you don't have notes to remind you that the tech is new, you are in trouble. When playing correctly, I would do a turn by turn list of the full tech situation for every faction, note: military builds, SE choices, etc etc . Basically when I looked at a faction, I would want to see everything that changed. Heck I would note the departure date of every probeship or warship and opponent built and would assume it was elite for the purpose of figuring our where it COULD be .

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Flubber


I don't recall the game. Did we finish or was it one of the many I had to quit when I left PBEMing?

hmmm-- I found in my games that I lost, I was generally outbuilt, out-teched or out-diplomatted. I generally did well on the tactical side of things

Ahh I looked it up-- This was the Smac game where I had the gaians with the believers and Hive as neighbors. You had the UNI and had close neighbors in the Morganites, Spartans, and PKs all in the vicinity of the jungle. IIRC the human controlled Spartans were pathetic-- They had a dream scenario with 3 other close factions and how they didn't manage to rush ANYONE, I'll never know. Anyway, my recollection was I tried to buttress the PKs by giving them some tech MM already had but he conquered them easily and took all the jungle and conquered BOTH other humans by 2167. The Morganites were either your submissive or your pactmate as well.

I doubt I could have come back and I think its fair to say MM would have won fairly easily. In that one I was definitely out-diplomatted as I shuld have supported the weakies better before you jumped them and ultimately I was out-built( I actually cringed when I saw two factions sharing the jungle) When I saw that, I figured my best chance was if both were strong. But I seem to recall that the PKs even lost a base to worms. The Hive and the Believers were hoplessly weak and no help at all going up the tech tree no matter what I gifted them.

My problem thinking back is that I don't know what I could have done to change things. perhaps a beeline to doc flex so I could get in contact with the humans earlier? I definitely needed to get in on some useful tech trades

[Minute Mirage]

I think the game suffered from the lack of CMN in that the starting positions were unequal. Mine was pretty good -- I had access to a part of the jungle and the rest of the terrain was normal. On the other hand, I was surrounded by three other factions, which is not ideal for my builder preferences.

The Spartans started in an abysmal position, the north eastern coast of the continent that was basically an arid wasteland. This accounted for quite a bit of their lousy start, although I don't think they were played as well as possible.

With two humans factions so close and space being very limited on a normal map, I knew I was in for a war sooner or later. Luckily, Uni is so quick at early research that I was able to beeline to Industrial Automation, switch to FM + wealth and then grab plasma armor and impact weapons to protect myself.

However, none of my neighbours were hostile early on which was very fortunate for me. I was able to trade techs with all of them and build in relative peace. In fact, since no one seemed to be interested in them, I managed to get nearly all of the early SPs.

The rest was pretty simple. I switched to Planned to pop boom and built an air force at the same time. When I switched back to FM I rehomed all the planes to an all-specialist base. I took out the Spartans and their ~3 cities and the PKs followed soon after.


I think the game would have been quite different if you had started on the same continent as the rest of us, Flubber. At least I doubt I would have had the luxury of grabbing all the SPs and attacking when it suited me the best.

[bluetemplar]

with tech parity there is no unit or combination of units that can have even a 50% chance of survival if in the open against an attack from the available enemy units. Build any group and put them in the open and an enemy can build a stack costing the same minerals that can kill it .

I disagree.
Assuming the tech gives 2 to 1 for the attack against defence : e.g. 2-1 ; 4-2 ; 6-3.
Assuming the attacker is a commando rover (+4*12.5%=+50%) against defender hardened (+2*12.5%=+25%) . (and after first units killed and some SE changes made the defenders often have as much morale than the defenders)
Assuming the defender stands on a rocky/forest/fungus with a sensor nearby (+50%+25%=+75%).

We have these strenghts : 3 against 2 (which is not so bad)

Now a bit later in the game:
6-*-2,gas (-25% defender) against *-3p-*,ECM : (+25% and +50%)
We have these strenghts :
6(+50%)=9 against 3(+25%-25%+75%+75%)=7.5
(which is even better)

And as a crippled attacker doesn't worth much anymore and will be easily destroyed by a counter-attacker you can fairly assume that the odds are even... furthermore that another function of a defender is to slow down the enemy progress.

In short IMHO a defender is as useful as a counter-attacker. (Things may change a bit with air power available but then you should have AAA to compensate)


Another thing:
In my experience , a SAM rover often kills 1 bomber and retreats without losses or 2 bombers and then is left on the open - for a cost less than of a bomber.

[Chaos Theory]

First, combat modifiers stack multiplicatively, not additively. A disciplined scout patrol on a rocky tile near a sensor defends at a strength of 1 * (1+50%) * (1+25%) = 1.875.

Second, to have a 50% chance of surviving a battle, given equal starting hit points, a unit must have a strength equal to the other unit's. The odds drop off pretty sharply as unit strengths diverge, and if your unit has less than half the strength of the other, with healthy units, you have effectively no chance of winning.

[bluetemplar]

First, combat modifiers stack multiplicatively, not additively. A disciplined scout patrol on a rocky tile near a sensor defends at a strength of 1 * (1+50%) * (1+25%) = 1.875

Hmm, I should have checked that . It means I'm in error for a very long time... Thanks for your correction!

Still, acording to that:
(And commando gives +37.5%, while hardened gives +12.5%)

4-*-* commando against *-2-*hardened :
4*1.375=5.5 against 2*1.125*1.5*1.25=4.21875
it's equivalent to 1.3 against 1.
=> still useful to slow down enemy progress

6-*-2,gas commando against *-3p-*hardened,ECM :
6*1.375=8.25 against 3*0.875*1.5*1.25*1.25*1.5=9.23
it's equivalent to 1 against 1.12
=> here the defender is stronger than the attacker, even with 4 more levels of morale for the latter!

[bluetemplar]

But the main problem is that there are too many variables... that's the charm of SMACX : you never have exactly the same conditions, same technologies at the same moment.
I like the defenders in field because they add far more strategy to this game than a best-1-rover : you can scout with them, mess up with enemy ZOC's, protect your boreholes/sensors and even maybe protect your own units for a counter attack (even if it's better with a transport-best-1)...

[Chaos Theory]

Forward defenders and skirmishers are very useful, just don't expect to be able to maintain them in the face of a large attack. Expect them to impair or attrit the attack instead.

Sea units really get shafted when it comes to defense. First, ships, when attacking other combat ships, get to choose whether to attack the opponent's weapon (with an artillery duel) or armor (with a normal attack). Thus, any defensive ship should have a weapon at least as strong as its armor. Second, the only terrain advantage at sea is fungus, which might not be where you need it. I'm not sure if sensors help ships, but if so they still don't reach far into the sea. Third, ships don't see nearly as far as they move, so if an opponent finds your ship by some means, he can move a ship into attacking range and attack, preventing you from counterattacking. Fourth, transports and other non-combat ships can't use AAA, so planes rip them up. Fifth, ships can't defend effectively in bases. Sixth, ships don't act as police.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
Thus, any defensive ship should have a weapon at least as strong as its armor.

Or be stacked with a high weapon ship. If I attempt to fight at sea, and I often don't, I go for numbers. Before aircover is available, ships are just too fragile and once airpower is available I find them largely obsolete. I usually build them to capture seabases that airpower has cleared

[Flubber]

Originally posted by bluetemplar
But the main problem is that there are too many variables... that's the charm of SMACX : you never have exactly the same conditions, same technologies at the same moment.
I like the defenders in field because they add far more strategy to this game than a best-1-rover : you can scout with them, mess up with enemy ZOC's, protect your boreholes/sensors and even maybe protect your own units for a counter attack (even if it's better with a transport-best-1)...

No and I'm not saying don't build defenders. A strong defensive unit can serve any number of good purposes. All I say is that with the usual tech situation, the weapon to armor ratio is 2 to 1 and any unit you can build has VERY limited survivability in the open.

my comments were about how survivable units are "in the open". This was in the context of someone attempting to attack with ground forces into my empire so at a minimum your defender has to lose his sensor coverage.

In addition, lets use common sense here. I would hardly ever bother to attack your strong defender inside your own territory unless there were other juicy units to kill underneath. And if said unit is coming towards my territory, you get no sensor and its pretty presumptious to assume you get a rocky or forest square to sit on. Its doubly presumptious when standard defensive ground doctrine is to road the good defensive square to create mobility to kill folks in the poor defensive squares

Have to go-- more later

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by Flubber


Or be stacked with a high weapon ship. If I attempt to fight at sea, and I often don't, I go for numbers. Before aircover is available, ships are just too fragile and once airpower is available I find them largely obsolete. I usually build them to capture seabases that airpower has cleared

Naval battles have always been a problem with the Civ/Smac franchises.
I have a long laundry list, but suffice it to say, a hex/tile based system for navies doesn't work on the strategic level. If we're playing a tactical game, then yes, it can work.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Minute Mirage
I think the game suffered from the lack of CMN in that the starting positions were unequal. Mine was pretty good -- I had access to a part of the jungle and the rest of the terrain was normal. On the other hand, I was surrounded by three other factions, which is not ideal for my builder preferences.

it can be a big factor. My recollection was that I was in an arid area on a narrow strip of land and ended up developing along the north and down the east side of the "freshwater sea". I liked the idea of an inland trawler field until I saw the Hive had a port on that same sea.

It was a weird start since 4 of your were jammed in around the jungle and I was in a tight grouping of three around that sea. There were a couple of large landmasses that were completely empty.

Originally posted by Minute Mirage The Spartans started in an abysmal position, the north eastern coast of the continent that was basically an arid wasteland. This accounted for quite a bit of their lousy start, although I don't think they were played as well as possible.

I saw their bases were in crap locations but with neighbors that close they should have been able to intimidate SOMEONE. A laser rover with great morale can be a scary thing in 2110 after all.

Originally posted by Minute Mirage
However, none of my neighbours were hostile early on which was very fortunate for me. I was able to trade techs with all of them and build in relative peace. In fact, since no one seemed to be interested in them, I managed to get nearly all of the early SPs.

That was killing to me-- I probably lost a bunch of years in the tech race since what exactly were the Hive and Miriam going to trade??

Originally posted by Minute Mirage

I think the game would have been quite different if you had started on the same continent as the rest of us, Flubber. At least I doubt I would have had the luxury of grabbing all the SPs and attacking when it suited me the best.

My early game consisted of trying to expand across an arid wasteland and keep from being attacked by the Terrible Two. When I finally met you folks I knew I was in trouble. I didn't like you getting all the SPs but frankly I didn't get crawlers for far too long to compete for them. I grew painfully slowly.

If I were closer, I would have mixed up the diplomacy a bit, thats for sure . .. At a minimum I expect I would have identified you as a threat to everyone earlier and maybe with earlier contact with the PKs, I could have made some trades to make me competitive tech wise



OH and MM, have you ever played the vets map over at CGN? Everyone gets and identical landmass in one of the 4 corners which is quite large and then there is an empty symmetrical landmass in the middle. All land is at least 8 tiles from the nearest other landmass ( unless you do like I did and raise land to join them)-- No pods-- there is not much value to exploration but building is a key and tactics/strategy play a large part as well since that central continent is the only sensible place for anyone to grow

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ka Plewy

Naval battles have always been a problem with the Civ/Smac franchises.
I have a long laundry list, but suffice it to say, a hex/tile based system for navies doesn't work on the strategic level. If we're playing a tactical game, then yes, it can work.

For sure-- Its gotten to the point where my "navy" is really just for exploration and pod popping. I don't expect to project power with it