Strategically, you should be able to build enough ships at maximum size of your tech level, to be everywhere you want a ship to be.
No... not if you want to be economical. I just leave one sometimes two ships in a system to patrol. In my current game that is a frigate type ship at size 300 my maximum size is 400 with carriers at 600. These 300 size ships can't really destroy anything but they have good shield, armor and is fast. Their role has been to stall and it has worked.
Um, the point is to be economical... Ok, so you leave 2 ships in your system. Why 2? Why not make it one ship with the power of 2? Afterall you got the tech to do so, correct? Isn't that far more economical? Now they can stall and take twice as much damage without being destroyed. Not that it matters, since usually you can't warp in quickly enough from another system. Though if you are building ships with barely any weapons, it's uneconomical anyhow as you are paying maintenance for a ship that really isn't doing anything till the system they are defending is attacked.
Logistically, the same amount of resources used to build smaller ships is just as fast as one to build a larger ship.
In my experience it seems to be faster to build smaller ships. In the current game I built a few naval shipyards. Basically just shipyards. About 12 yards for one plant of each type, I think you can even build more yards. Smaller ships don't have that many components and you can build pretty many of them of you like to build a swarm fleet. Though, I have not gone crazy about it in my current game.
Why? Why do you always talk about irrelevencies about your game? Why do you cover up your nonsense with random verbiage? Why do you ignore the three lines below this one, where I already explained to you, not to compare one ship with one ship? Instead compare the resources used. If you are building many small ships as you already said, then you can just as easily build lesser numbers of larger ships. Same amount of combat power and resources used, at the same speed.
I'll respond to this babble with more effort than you put in. NO.
Well, you babble all YOU want... I did just that in my game yesterday!!!
You said, "These smaller ships can often confuse the enemy and that will mean they manage to fire of less offensive rounds or do it in an ineffective way." I ask for an explanation.
Then you said, "According to the in game help it appear that positioning do have an impact on the efficiency of the firepower of a ship. If it means it can shoot less shots or the take longer to fire or are more inaccurate it does not say. I do take it as if it in same way at least have an impact." This makes no sense.
Then you said, "On a strategic scale you can when you send them in to attack enemy infrastructure and freighters, combined with warp inhibitors on some specially designed ships. It is micromanagement since the AI automation does not handle such things very well. "
I feel justified in calling out that you don't explain what your wrote and respond with irrelevent, inaccurate and nonsensical replies. Hence babble.
You went from saying you want a ship just big enough to destroy an enemy base, to comparing fleets. Does not compute.
No I did not... you send a ship big enough to destroy a base and not a fleet to do it. I usually send one squadron of a number of ships as their are targets in that system and attack. (scouting and/or intelligence gathering is very important first)
At the same time I would send my fleets or just baits elsewhere to distract the enemies fleets.
What is this? We are talking about ship sizes. So apparently a smaller ship is capable of destroying a base, but if you designed larger ships, you would send a fleet to destroy a base. And then you carry on to say you send a squadron of ships anyways. Which is totally different from what a fleet means! You make no sense.
OK, so you are saying this strategy is an reason for smaller ships. Only that you never done this strategy ever. But it works. Sense, it doesn't make any.
Not what I said at all... do you read what I write or just assume?
I said I have not sent huge numbers of ships because I have not gone THAT far into the game yet. I have still used the strategy but on a smaller scale because it is still early in my first real game. I'm not saying that things can change down the line either.
Yep, that is exactly what you said. And then wrote it again. But then you say that is not what you wrote at all. lol. This is getting ridiculous.
Shall I break it down for you?
You have a strategy.
It involves sending out small ships to every base the enemy has.
You use this strategy to justify smaller ships.
You say "but my strategy worked against the ones I have encountered so far."
You have never done this before.
Your reason for not doing this is becasue ou haven't gotten fair enough in the game (whatever that means), and that you have done this on a smaller scale (meaning that you never done this before).
This doesn't change from the fact that you propose a strategy that you have never done.
And you propose this strategy to justify smaller ships.
Except it doesn't anyways, as long as your economy is strong enough, that you can build a larger ship for every base.
And the interface isn't good enough to do so.
I'm now not allowed to flesh out my answers because you might get upset... I suggest you don't read what I write then. [;)
That'll be because your fleshing out involves distraction and makes no sense.
And since your "fleshing out" are dispersed across 2 threads and many posts, prcisely because you don't explain anything, they are hard to link up.
Example; saying that it's economical to use more resources to defend a system. And with that "economical" more amount of resources, it can only stall, so you have to use an even greater amount of resources just to defend that system.
Example; comparing attacking with one smaller ship with many larger ships. Then you say you attack with many smaller ships anyways.
Example; talking about many smaller ships confusing an AI so they shoot less, and you did it yesterday! Only that I can't work out what you did yesterday, as you never explained it, and then talked about soemthign else.
Example; a strategy, you have never done, but you assure me that it works.
You repond to logical reasoning with irrelevent nonsense, which doesn't hold up when examined on what they mean.
In fact, that's all you do, resplendent with smilies.
Sadly, because they make no sense, it takes more effort to explain why they don't make sense than it does for you to type them.
< Message edited by Plant -- 11/26/2013 6:44:05 PM >