Fleet tactic

[Plant]

Well, what can I say Stark? It's not as if you have given any logical explanation to your ship and fleet types. Basing on real life deployments in a space game is an absurdity in itself, where both the setting and rules of the game is different from any real life comparisons, not that you have followed it properly anyhow. But I recognise that's your playstyle, and that's totally fine.

It's a single player game Shark. You can play it however you like. It's not as if you would feel an impulse to improve yourself through competition the same way a mutiplayer game would.

[Starke]

ORIGINAL: Plant

Well, what can I say Stark? It's not as if you have given any logical explanation to your ship and fleet types.

Um. 0_o Pretty sure I'm being trolled here, but if not, please see my first and second posts in this thread.

My fleets are in no way based around real-world fleets - for example, mine are vastly more homogeneous. Each ship is designed with a role in mind, the different fleets are composed of ships suited for the fleet's 'mission profile' of sorts, and that mission profile is indicated by its name, which has the benefit of locating all similar fleets next to each other in the Fleets tab.

Assault fleets get my destroyers, designed for general combat, matching the fleet's mission profile. (they get a couple other ships late game once I acquire fleet boosts and hyperdeny, as there is no need for the whole fleet to have those)

Defense fleets get frigates, my shorter-range, higher-sublight design, as they won't need to travel far.

Strike fleets get destroyers, as they require the roughly same type of ship as Assault fleets, but in lesser numbers.

Etc., etc.

Yes, I could totally make my combat, defense, recon, and other ships all "escorts," "frigates," etc. as those classes are all completely arbitrary and impose no limits on the design. I prefer to use several of the in-game ship types so I don't have to keep multiple designs of the same ship type around, it makes them easier to distinguish in fleets, when constructing, prevents me accidentally obsoleting the same design, etc.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Plant

Well, what can I say Stark? It's not as if you have given any logical explanation to your ship and fleet types. Basing on real life deployments in a space game is an absurdity in itself, where both the setting and rules of the game is different from any real life comparisons, not that you have followed it properly anyhow. But I recognise that's your playstyle, and that's totally fine.

It's a single player game Shark. You can play it however you like. It's not as if you would feel an impulse to improve yourself through competition the same way a mutiplayer game would.

I'm going to assume you aren't meaning to be harsh, but it can be interpreted that way. Text on the internet can be so easily taken the wrong way.

I've played enough multiplayer RTS games in the past to know how that works. I wouldn't be so quick to claim that you improve yourself in that scene...since so many times the answer seems to be the zerg tactic (who can get there the first with the most). Also the competition often ruins the game, you can't just have fun with it. That is the reason I haven't really played a MP game in a long time. Keep in mind that I can't really judge anymore, been too long since I've played a MP RTS game.

For those that like that type of game, there is nothing wrong with it. I just prefer the more relaxed pace game and if I tend to play it more RPG style then I'm happy with that. I'm just in it for the fun, and would rather avoid the stress of multiplayer.

[Plant]

Have no fear Starke, for I have read your posts; I aren't intentionally trying to disrupt the thread. To explain in a short manner, I view your ship types and fleet organisation as inflexible and rigid, a prime example being your "Aegis [system name]". In my view such an organisational naming device is not needed, and is done for a flavour to your games.

Well, playing the Zerg race in Broodwar relies on teching up and utilising small numbers of certain high tech units to be able to emgage their opponent in battle, I think what you meant of zerging, which is a known misnomer, but I won't bore you into going into the details unless you ask me to.

Anyhow, the intention of my sentence, which admittedly somewhat sounds harsh, is that there is no competition, and therefore no comparison.

[Erik Rutins]

Awesome thread - by design, the game allows you to pursue just about any ship design and fleet composition strategy that you choose. Through save files, we've seen some very interesting and specialized designs. If you push the boundaries in any direction, you may find some interesting results. It's great to read about your experiences and the different strategies you've tried. One point I'll add is that I've found that even in the post-hyperspace era, there is still a good role that some non-hyperspace ships can play, at which they are quite cost effective. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

[Plant]

No hyperspace ships in the hyperspace era? Why?

Hyperspace component is negligibly cheap, relative to the benefits it brings. And it only gets relatively cheaper the bigger the ship becomes. I can see a role that some private sector ships can bring if you are a pirate (because you can choose where to build them), if the non hyperspace ships choose to remain in system, but then they suddenly become useless as soon as you want them out of the system.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Plant

No hyperspace ships in the hyperspace era? Why?

Hyperspace component is negligibly cheap, relative to the benefits it brings. And it only gets relatively cheaper the bigger the ship becomes. I can see a role that some private sector ships can bring if you are a pirate (because you can choose where to build them), if the non hyperspace ships choose to remain in system, but then they suddenly become useless as soon as you want them out of the system.

Having a ship with no hyperdrive built at a planet you want it to defend might not be so bad though, those ships would have to stay put. I can see a use for them as the defense fleet for the imperial capitol.

[Plant]

I see no reasons for any military ship to not have a hyperdrive. A defence fleet without hyperdrive? That's just wishful thinking. You'll wish you lost that extra 1-7% gain in combat effectiveness that is gained from not having a hyperdrive for the ability to protect anything that isn't your homeworld. Like when pirate/enemy empire attack your mines. Or attack anywhere else and you haven't the ships available. The gain in not having hyperdrive is greatly exceeded by the disadvantages. There is no reason whatsoever for a military ship to not have hyperspace at all. Not for any strategic reason.

Even having your one starting system having mining bases is enough to make hyperspace essential, nevermind an entire empire.

[Erik Rutins]

One thing that you may not be aware of is that non-hyperspace ships have a significant maintenance discount and without the hyperdrive and extra energy requirements, you can really go to town in other areas.

Regards,

- Erik

[lando005]

Which automation options are you referring to? I've made a few changes to my tactics since I last stopped by here. I play primaraly defensively and so I've tailored my fleets accordingly. I've been tweeking by using end level game tech to see what my fleets would look like down the line and have been using that as my point of reference. Also the Galatopidia helped alot with recommendations for ship roles. I'm still going to keep primaraly general pupose tactical fleets composed of cuisers, capital ships, carriers, trasports, and supply ships, but I've also decided to keep a reserve of destroyers on hand as well, and leave the escorts and frigates free to their own missions.

ORIGINAL: Plant

In the end it's just personal preference what you decide to design for and what tactics to use, since it is a single player game.
Even if you want to design effective designs, it largely depends on your automaton options,, which by the way, you haven't bothered to describe.

Something to keep in mind though is that for the most part, full blown roleplaying designs like Starke and Shark7 (similar names lol) tends towards automaton and are fantastically, tactically and strategically nonsensical.

Whilst I would tend towards exactly what Icemania has described, but it is as a both a consequence of switching off ship production and fleet automaton, and born of a desire to play tactically and strategically.

[lando005]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Also, I don't put a fleet at every system because if you try to defend everywhere you will lose everything. Besides you will bankrupt your little empire if you try to be everywhere in force.

I find myself agreeing with you here as fleet ranges are the latest thing I'm trying to tackle here. I've been using my hyperdrive level to help set the ranges my fleets are at but I'm not entierly sure about the "nearby systems" setting, I would want to use that for my defensive fleets but how far away would a system have to be from that fleet's home base to be considered out of range? And for fleets that have their range set for anywhere I assume the resupply ship should do its job and refuel the fleet as needed.

[lando005]

You know just going over all the comments on this thread you can see the various diffrent play styles we have all come up with, and that we all have our strenghts and weaknesses, if this game was multiplay I would have had fun playing with you all, and becomeing a better player for it.

[lando005]

Another thing we haven't talked about are the combative ability of our stationary and non military units. I myself do not arm any of my civilian vessles or bases ( this is purely a role play driven choice on my part) At one point my exploration ships were armed but I decided against it for now. I was also thinking about putting a resource profiler on my military ships as well as cargo bays etc but again I've decided against that for right now. as far as star bases and defensive bases go I keep defensive bases at every colony but star bases are only buit at the system capital and are exclusively for military ship use. Although with my last game I did find myself setting up a starbase and a few other support stations in a remote unclaimed system to act as a forward command base this has proven very effective as my enemy at the time was across a nebula cloud that covered an entire sector at the time my long range abilities were limited so I needed a place to refuel.

[new_bee]

There is one problem with fleet w/o hyperdrive. Common situation: they repulse attack, spent almost all fuel to fire lazors, then refuel at spaceport and forgot to park themselve on orbit. couple month later homeworld planet in opposite side of solar system and they cant warp there. So that fleet require much babysitting

[lando005]

ORIGINAL: new_bee

There is one problem with fleet w/o hyperdrive. Common situation: they repulse attack, spent almost all fuel to fire lazors, then refuel at spaceport and forgot to park themselve on orbit. couple month later homeworld planet in opposite side of solar system and they cant warp there. So that fleet require much babysitting

I also wonder if it is possible to engage such a fleet with a hyperspace equipped strike force just to draw that fleet away from their post then break off engagement and go after their now defenseless position

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: lando005

ORIGINAL: new_bee

There is one problem with fleet w/o hyperdrive. Common situation: they repulse attack, spent almost all fuel to fire lazors, then refuel at spaceport and forgot to park themselve on orbit. couple month later homeworld planet in opposite side of solar system and they cant warp there. So that fleet require much babysitting

I also wonder if it is possible to engage such a fleet with a hyperspace equipped strike force just to draw that fleet away from their post then break off engagement and go after their now defenseless position

If you set it's range to minimum (that is stay put at the planet) then it won't leave the planet. You might draw it off just a bit, but it should maintain station where it is supposed to be.

[lando005]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: lando005

ORIGINAL: new_bee

There is one problem with fleet w/o hyperdrive. Common situation: they repulse attack, spent almost all fuel to fire lazors, then refuel at spaceport and forgot to park themselve on orbit. couple month later homeworld planet in opposite side of solar system and they cant warp there. So that fleet require much babysitting

I also wonder if it is possible to engage such a fleet with a hyperspace equipped strike force just to draw that fleet away from their post then break off engagement and go after their now defenseless position

If you set it's range to minimum (that is stay put at the planet) then it won't leave the planet. You might draw it off just a bit, but it should maintain station where it is supposed to be.

They would have to be armed to the teeth, and highly manuverable to make it worth while. At that point they really wouldn't be ships, they would be mobile defense platforms.

[Icemania]

Armed exploration ships, mid and late game can be very effective strategically.

Early game they remain unarmed as I prefer to use the space for fuel to explore as widely as possible to get the goodies around the galaxy.

However, once I have ~ Size 500 with mid-tier shields, mid-tier weapons (e.g. Shockwave Torpedoes) and Long Range Scanners I'll start to arm them. At this stage the focus is normally clearing out the local area, they can be effective in taking out pirate mining bases and also space creatures e.g. for debris fields etc. This leaves the fleets to take out the pirate space ports.

Once I have ~ Size 650, Meridian Shields, Plasma Torpedoes and Long Range Scanners they become strong enough to take the smallest pirate space ports as well (still need to be careful). This can be particularly effective if you have then stationed around the map to keep Scanner Visibility of the galaxy.

Arming all bases can also be strategically effective. By mid-game I'll typically have 10 Shields / 10 Torpedoes. Combined with the focus above on taking out pirates most of the time bases can readily defend themselves against the majority of attacks. I'll keep a few defensive ships around in hot spots only.

I don't use defensive bases. One heavily armed starport is harder to defeat that a couple of smaller defensive bases (with equal overall firepower / shields) e.g. attackers can focus fire on a single defensive base etc.

I played around at one stage with armed civilians but always regretted it as they can lead to conflict at times that aren't ideal. Instead, they're fast, and so can escape almost any situation.

I have starports at every colony. Small starports are designed to be built quickly and are as small as possible with minimal arms. Medium starports are designed for general use over colonies. Large starports only for homeworlds. All starports have medical/recreation centres.

I'll progressively build gas mining stations around the map for refuelling and scanning purposes.

ORIGINAL: lando005

Another thing we haven't talked about are the combative ability of our stationary and non military units. I myself do not arm any of my civilian vessles or bases ( this is purely a role play driven choice on my part) At one point my exploration ships were armed but I decided against it for now. I was also thinking about putting a resource profiler on my military ships as well as cargo bays etc but again I've decided against that for right now. as far as star bases and defensive bases go I keep defensive bases at every colony but star bases are only buit at the system capital and are exclusively for military ship use. Although with my last game I did find myself setting up a starbase and a few other support stations in a remote unclaimed system to act as a forward command base this has proven very effective as my enemy at the time was across a nebula cloud that covered an entire sector at the time my long range abilities were limited so I needed a place to refuel.

[lando005]

Interesting, I may consider putting some defensive only weapons on my mining stations and civ ships, tractorbeams, ion cannon etc. I've been thinking long term enemy denial capabilities which is where my defensive bases come into play, eventually they will not only serve to protect my colonies and forward operational facilities but act as long term blocaides of enemy forces (especially once I equip them with hyper jaming tech). For example when I've beaten an enemy back to their home world I would build one or more of them in orbit of that planet to prevent them from rebuilding their forces. Or an even more ambitious idea is to build them along trade routes or cut off an entire system. How is putting the long range scanner on your explorers working out for you? I've tried doing that with my escorts but my over all speed suffers greatly to the point that it doesn't seem worth it.

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Armed exploration ships, mid and late game can be very effective strategically.

Early game they remain unarmed as I prefer to use the space for fuel to explore as widely as possible to get the goodies around the galaxy.

However, once I have ~ Size 500 with mid-tier shields, mid-tier weapons (e.g. Shockwave Torpedoes) and Long Range Scanners I'll start to arm them. At this stage the focus is normally clearing out the local area, they can be effective in taking out pirate mining bases and also space creatures e.g. for debris fields etc. This leaves the fleets to take out the pirate space ports.

Once I have ~ Size 650, Meridian Shields, Plasma Torpedoes and Long Range Scanners they become strong enough to take the smallest pirate space ports as well (still need to be careful). This can be particularly effective if you have then stationed around the map to keep Scanner Visibility of the galaxy.

Arming all bases can also be strategically effective. By mid-game I'll typically have 10 Shields / 10 Torpedoes. Combined with the focus above on taking out pirates most of the time bases can readily defend themselves against the majority of attacks. I'll keep a few defensive ships around in hot spots only.

I don't use defensive bases. One heavily armed starport is harder to defeat that a couple of smaller defensive bases (with equal overall firepower / shields) e.g. attackers can focus fire on a single defensive base etc.

I played around at one stage with armed civilians but always regretted it as they can lead to conflict at times that aren't ideal. Instead, they're fast, and so can escape almost any situation.

I have starports at every colony. Small starports are designed to be built quickly and are as small as possible with minimal arms. Medium starports are designed for general use over colonies. Large starports only for homeworlds. All starports have medical/recreation centres.

I'll progressively build gas mining stations around the map for refuelling and scanning purposes.

ORIGINAL: lando005

Another thing we haven't talked about are the combative ability of our stationary and non military units. I myself do not arm any of my civilian vessles or bases ( this is purely a role play driven choice on my part) At one point my exploration ships were armed but I decided against it for now. I was also thinking about putting a resource profiler on my military ships as well as cargo bays etc but again I've decided against that for right now. as far as star bases and defensive bases go I keep defensive bases at every colony but star bases are only buit at the system capital and are exclusively for military ship use. Although with my last game I did find myself setting up a starbase and a few other support stations in a remote unclaimed system to act as a forward command base this has proven very effective as my enemy at the time was across a nebula cloud that covered an entire sector at the time my long range abilities were limited so I needed a place to refuel.

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: lando005
I've been thinking long term enemy denial capabilities which is where my defensive bases come into play, eventually they will not only serve to protect my colonies and forward operational facilities but act as long term blocaides of enemy forces (especially once I equip them with hyper jaming tech). For example when I've beaten an enemy back to their home world I would build one or more of them in orbit of that planet to prevent them from rebuilding their forces. Or an even more ambitious idea is to build them along trade routes or cut off an entire system. How is putting the long range scanner on your explorers working out for you? I've tried doing that with my escorts but my over all speed suffers greatly to the point that it doesn't seem worth it.

I find using scanners on explorers and bases the most efficient approach. A number of explorers are placed initially around my territory, then in larger rings, then the whole map once Ultra Long Range Scanners are available i.e. in areas where bases don't provide coverage. I don't use escorts, I simply use the largest military ship I can build (which never has a scanner), and each fleet has an explorer with a scanner, so it can hunt in areas where I don't have coverage yet.

I would suggest that using scanners on escorts is inefficient as many scanners will cover the same territory. I'd rather use the space on my military ships for weapons, shields or speed.

Once available, my military ships and bases will always have Hyperdeny, so those pesky construction ships (etc) can't get away.

Note with early explorers I tend to wait until I have enough ship building size available to have scanners and also keep reasonable speeds. Early game the explorers will find the first round of targets to attack anyway.

Whenever practical I often go straight for the home system (particularly early to mid game) ... cut off the head of the snake so to speak.

Personally I'm quite happy for them to (try to) attack so I rarely use hyper jump disruption ... so I can blow them away!