General Category > AI War
Does anyone use a "Beachhead" Strategy?
TechSY730:
--- Quote from: x4000 on May 24, 2012, 02:20:35 PM ---Cheers! I've been absolutely crushed with work since the AVWW release, but it's at least normalizing some these days. New version about to drop in just a few minutes for AI War, too. :)
With 5.0 one of the things I really was trying to do was to get the "mini battlefields within battlefields" going again with the changes to the fortresses and force fields. But, ah, that proved less than popular. ;)
In a lot of respects, as the game has evolved I think each planet has become more like a single square on a chess board: it's hard for two sides to occupy that for any substantial stretch of time without one side obliterating the other.
With the more recent Neinzul starship changes, though, you could make a more mobile beachhead plus force fields, etc. Then there's not the time/expense of setup and teardown.
--- End quote ---
Wait, unlike normal forcefields, spirecraft shield bearers do not require supply, right?
Hmm, there is a possibility, setting up a small beachead a few planets out with some shield bearers, enclave ships, mobile repairs, and a small defending fleet. That could actually work pretty well, I'll have to try that. :)
Diazo:
I think it was the implementation of combat styles that did it in.
Back when you had no choice and epic was the only combat style around things moved a lot slower and having a safe zone in a hostile system was worth it. Now that I play on what is called Normal (in the current version) it's just not worth it, I just pull my fleet back and eat a few losses when I return to the system if there has been a reinforcement wave while I have my forces pulled back.
The changes to wormhole guard posts and turrets, and the AI not having turrets any more, were also changes that led to that strategy not being as attractive.
With the changes on the AI side from Turrets to Guardians you don't have a significant chunk of the AI forces unable to move any more, so the battle for the system is resolved a lot quicker, either you win the system faster then you can get a significant beachhead up or you lose and any turrets under construction get destroyed.
And with AI Waves just appearing out of wormholes, any defences put up as part of a beachhead get bypassed.
D.
TechSY730:
Yea, the greater emphasis on AI mobility combined with the AI being more focused in how they use those ships basically leads to what Dazio said, you tend to win faster, thus not needing a beachead, or you lose faster, meaning you won't have time to set up a beachead.
--- Quote from: Diazo on May 24, 2012, 07:09:36 PM ---And with AI Waves just appearing out of wormholes, any defences put up as part of a beachhead get bypassed.
--- End quote ---
Actually, that is a pretty good point, good enough for me to give cross planet waves a shot.
keith.lamothe:
Actually, combat style's been around since... well, since before I worked for Arcen, at least. Before it was called "Normal" and "Fast and Dangerous". Then around the Unity port timeframe it was changed to "Epic" (the old Normal), "Normal" (the old Fast and Dangerous), and "Blitz" (a new option).
But yes, generally really deep individual tactical engagements rely on a certain range of ratios between speeds, initial ranges, and attack ranges. I think SotS is a decent example of a game where the tactical engagements had a deeper feel due to much lower speeds and attack ranges, but I don't think many people would finish a game of AIW if the combats took that long :)
The main depth is in the strategic decisions; there's a lot of tactical depth if it's a close battle, but in general we don't want to add tactical depth at the expense of strategic playability (i.e. not adding more waiting).
Diazo:
--- Quote from: keith.lamothe on May 24, 2012, 07:28:10 PM ---Actually, combat style's been around since... well, since before I worked for Arcen, at least. Before it was called "Normal" and "Fast and Dangerous". Then around the Unity port timeframe it was changed to "Epic" (the old Normal), "Normal" (the old Fast and Dangerous), and "Blitz" (a new option).
But yes, generally really deep individual tactical engagements rely on a certain range of ratios between speeds, initial ranges, and attack ranges. I think SotS is a decent example of a game where the tactical engagements had a deeper feel due to much lower speeds and attack ranges, but I don't think many people would finish a game of AIW if the combats took that long :)
The main depth is in the strategic decisions; there's a lot of tactical depth if it's a close battle, but in general we don't want to add tactical depth at the expense of strategic playability (i.e. not adding more waiting).
--- End quote ---
Ya, I've always played on 'Normal', regardless of the actual setting speed. So I did effectively change to a faster combat style when Epic was added.
(I can see how my previous post wasn't actually clear on that.)
D.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version