Coastal Defense

[Mart]

That is what I really lack in SMACX. While civ game have it, SMACX in my oppinion really might use something like that. That is true, you have perimeter defense etc., but attack from the sea is specific, and a base might have special facility that would improve defenses from sea direction.
Also a land tile might have next to bunker, a coastal fortification thing. Presently, the threat of attack from the sea is too large, making many strategies to avoid coastal bases. Personally I do not like it. Having such facility would up to the player if he/she wishes to invest in it or not.

[GeoModder]

With the superior strength of landbased artillery units, it seems to me that that angle is covered. I've had it that while attempting to bombard a coastal improvement, the artillery unit in the nearby base would fire at me.

[binTravkin]

I think Mart was talking about amphibious pods and cheapness and effectiveness of a transport cruiser filled with 4 elite 5~-1-2s..

[Mart]

Yes, and even worse are those infantry ones with +25% attack versus base, when you have 2 sea transports with eight (8) ellite 5~-1-1 cheap Marines.

[binTravkin]

Yes, if you can slip a ship early enough(before DAP) and close enough(to not be sighted and countered) there's practically no problem to take a coastal base.
Before D:AP there's nothing that can withstand even 4~-1-1s as they actually have attack of 6 (Mart, the +25% infantry versus base bonus is negated by the base's 25% bonus IIRC)

Perimeter Defenses can help, but if you look at the cost of 1 1-3-1 plus a per def in each or almost each coastal base against cost of a single cruiser transport + 4 of those marines, the numbers speak.

[Mart]

Yes, but rovers do not have 25% against the base, there is that difference I mean here.
I prefer always infantry against bases as long as I can transport them, so they can attack with full point (not hasty), also using land transports when possible - when not coastal base.
Against AI, if done correctly, I rarely loose any Marines.
It is true, rovers have extra attack, though chance to survive is lower without that 25% bonus, and if I am not mistaken, if your first attack goes to 50% damage, you do not get the second attack.

DAP is also two ways. Cover your transport with Missile tacticals or chaos tacticals and defender even if spots the threat will have to destroy every tactical having possibly more of them in the case of lost air fights. Not always in the range. You have cruiser transports 5 moves. That leaves defender like additional 3 tiles in land for bases capable to strike with tacticals an approaching sea offensive. And you have to cover large part of sea (often) when scouting for possible sea transports thus you need additional air units for that, while attacker can simply concentrate air forces where he/she attacks/prepares the strike. SMACX is beneficial for attacker here.

In general it is not a big problem, but avoiding coastal bases is taking away a lot of game fun for me.

[binTravkin]

Regarding your breakdown on DAP - if you build a Marine force you're very likely to have 2-3 NJs more than an equal opponent, thus that wouldn't work well..

Scouting can tune it down, yes, but still the risk is big as people often set up thingies to add scouting like a sensor or airbase on some small island or something like that.

[Mart]

If you take closer look into the stuff:

a base with aerospace complex and 1-<3>-1 unit is 12 on defense

a base against sea attack has only perimeter defense (25% base does not count then, coz of perimeter) then your 1-3-1 is only 6. not counting sensors in both cases.

Sure, a land attack is the same - only 6 on defense, but you do not have land transports moving 5 tiles (or more if elite transport or even having MCC) Plus there is no zones of control on sea. you do not need roads on sea.

Would it be possible to find some solution to this? aplicable maybe even without alphax.txt modification?

[GeoModder]

You could decrease the movement of transport sea units even more. Giving them the "slow" ability.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by mart7x5


DAP is also two ways. Cover your transport with Missile tacticals or chaos tacticals and defender even if spots the threat will have to destroy every tactical having possibly more of them in the case of lost air fights.

Not really. I send out my own chaos needles and self destruct them causing damage to your whole stack. By my calculation 2 self destructs damages everything into inneffectiveness or I could send an impact plane as a 3rd suicider to kill them all

End result is at a cost of 3 planes, you lose a transport with 4 troops and all the covering tacticals


OR-- I need to doublecheck this but I think your tacticals will NOT protect your transport from sea bombardment . So a single good ship takes out the entire invasion force

Originally posted by mart7x5


That leaves defender like additional 3 tiles in land for bases capable to strike with tacticals an approaching sea offensive. And you have to cover large part of sea (often) when scouting for possible sea transports thus you need additional air units for that, while attacker can simply concentrate air forces where he/she attacks/prepares the strike.

ahh the detection problem. Obviously a defender has a problem if they have no idea from which direction an attack may come. A large open ocean is very difficult to patrol and defend but it is possible. Some defensive tactics

1. The radar trawler. I use these a LOT. It gathers resources in a key direction and will die to any attack but thats ok. Located say two tiles off your coast, they can be moved out two tiles and back two tiles each and every turn, thus giving you visibility out off your coast while still gathering. I actually will have some of these even much further out as an early warning beacon. To do this well is actually very very tedious but worthwhile. In some games I have actually achieved a sensor net where overlapping trawlers gave fairly complete coverage of sea approaches but this is tougher to accomplish

2. Limiting coastal bases-- pretty self explanatory-- I've seen players that seem to avoid them except when they want to build a strong seaport.

3. The land barrier-- I have written many times about the possible benefit of raising land when facing an opponent that is ruling the seas . In many many games a strategic land raise in a key area can render most naval tactics ineffective. This is very very effective against the AI. I don't know how many AI landings I have seen on my fingers of land which could then be dispatched at my leisure. Even against a human, you are increasing their travel time to reach anything significant and their chances of detection. If I see any risk at all, I will task 4-6 formers to this defensive duty, raising land and creating sensors. This might seem expensive but compared with building defensive improvements and supporting a lot of troops, its actually pretty decent

4. Agressive air and ship patrolling-- IN smax you want to be the attacker so the key is to find your enemies first. I always play with "fog of war" ON because want to be constantly reminded of every tile where I am not certain what is located there.



If your opponent can truly come at you from any direction, you are in trouble anyway


None of these are perfect and it is always better to be atatcking your opponent than preparing to defend their attacks . Thats why my number one tactic would be to go kill the opponents forces first

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GeoModder
You could decrease the movement of transport sea units even more. Giving them the "slow" ability.

I never would - -- Naval warfare is so limited already once people hit DAP that making ships less mobile would eliminate it completely.

I don't mind that a good amphibious force can cause major damage. If you can sneak ships up to an opponents core, thats the way it should be . . . you should be able to hurt them. To me , it adds to the game that it is sometimes difficult to defend .

The problem for the attacker in this scenario is what they do with the coastal base after they capture it. With just some attacking marines they are then vulnerable to arty, probes, planes, opposing infantry and rovers.

So without additional support, these marines are essentially on a suicide raid

[Mart]

Originally posted by Flubber
OR-- I need to doublecheck this but I think your tacticals will NOT protect your transport from sea bombardment . So a single good ship takes out the entire invasion force

I think this is true. Therefore an additional cruiser with artilery is needed.

2. Limiting coastal bases-- pretty self explanatory-- I've seen players that seem to avoid them except when they want to build a strong seaport.

This is something we want to avoid - avoiding sea bases. There should be sea bases.

None of these are perfect and it is always better to be atatcking your opponent than preparing to defend their attacks . Thats why my number one tactic would be to go kill the opponents forces first

Yes, but SMAC changes then into game that we all see now. After getting DAP usually many really fierce games end. From strategies of building a society on a planet, conquest is the most preferable.
I remember, Sid Meyer once said that civ1 was not about war.

[Mart]

Originally posted by Flubber
Not really. I send out my own chaos needles and self destruct them causing damage to your whole stack. By my calculation 2 self destructs damages everything into inneffectiveness or I could send an impact plane as a 3rd suicider to kill them all

This is another part here - naval flaws. However if you have 5 tiles away a base yourself as attacker, self-destruct cannot hurt you in a base, then next turn your ship/ships launch a succesful attack, while defender's units are sitting ducks. So when two faction come closer, they kill each other due to fear of such attack possibility.

As Velocyrix states in his guide, the general ratio of attack:defense is here 2:1. This is what makes the game quite violent.

What would help here would be coastal fortifications (as aerospace complex is fortification against air attacks). This would make ofensive more difficult, but would make other game elements more meaningful. War would be still possible, though more expensive. I tried doubling armor values, so far testing shows quite positive results.

Sea units are too much vulnerable for me in SMACX, as you say. This is one of the reasons, why I rarely build expensive cruisers. I were loosing them too easily. However amphibious assault is a bit too easy for me.
as I wrote:
AAA can be combined with aerspace cmplx.
Perimeter defence is alone here. Naval yard does not make +100% sea defense, last time I checked.

It is kinda similar to that drop probe teams loose all their move points after drop operation. This limits their use significantly, yet adds an element of difficulty for attacker.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by mart7x5



This is something we want to avoid - avoiding sea bases. There should be sea bases.
.

I'm not saying that people don't build them at all but I have seen MP games where there are a marked lack of coastal or seabases. I usually attribute it to a person's desire not to get probed.

[Flubber]

Oh and I am very very interested in naval tactics right now since I have joined a waterworld game as a replacement-- Its all very topical to me