Author Topic: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense  (Read 5348 times)

Offline Shrugging Khan

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Blitzkrieger riding the Neinzul Y PzKpfw Tiger!
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2012, 08:58:03 AM »
Yeah, that sounds similar to my way.
When I find a Dyson or Botnet, I go all-out and conquer all the worlds needed to connect my territories, then defended by roaming zombies/gatlings.
If I can't get either, then I rely on cheap, lightly-defended highway systems, entrenched high-value islands, a transport-borne fast response naval force, and leaving as many worlds as possible merely neutered for low AIP. Possibly with some high-mark, high-speed fleet ships patrolling along a line of redirector posts.

In that sense, a Dyson or Botnet find are probably the single most decisive factors for my strategic conduct. I never even noticed that until you brought up the issue, but I suppose it really is a big deal.

Offline zoutzakje

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 979
  • Crosshatch Conqueror
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2012, 11:38:06 AM »
indeed. Dyson or Botnet are my primairy target whenever I find one. ARS? Advanced Factory? Who cares, I want that Botnet. Only if a botnet is in a quite tricky position (like bordering a core world), then I might decide to leave it alone. Until I find the dyson sphere, in which case it doesn't matter anymore.
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,10328.msg100587.html#msg100587

Me? Wrong? Never! I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken...

Offline Martyn van Buren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2012, 03:08:13 PM »
Wow, are Dysons really that powerful?  I haven't played as much since I bought the expansions, and I'd sort of seen a Dyson as equivalent to human resistance fighters, which are nice to have around but are hardly going to save you if you don't build defenses properly.

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,560
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2012, 03:14:53 PM »
Dysons are mostly excellent at freeing up fleet resources from having to patrol the open edges of your areas.  They are VERY powerful if they're condensed into a world or 2 (imagine having 150+ gatlings on your whipping boy, it's quite nice).  They constantly spawn (though I think there's a galaxy cap) so if you dilute them through the backfield they're helpful in stopping the one-off attackers.

I'd have to say going back to the original question the more I evaluate this the more I realize everything I do is offensively orientated.  If I end up doing defensive unlocks it usually means the game is going bad for me.  Even things I unlock that are defensive in nature I do for offensive reasons.  IE: I unlock fortresses primarily for K-Raiding.  Same with high end Basic Turrets.  Middle Basics usually get scattered around to protect from light raiding.

Heck, I unlocked the Military III station to ATTACK with it! :)

So, definately offensively based.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,410
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2012, 03:25:44 PM »
It would be fun to make offensive use of turrets/fortresses/etc more of a thing in the future, though there are not-all-bad reasons the old beachhead (not the AI plot, the tactic) style has largely faded.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Martyn van Buren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2012, 04:16:19 PM »
Oh, has it?  I'm quite glad to hear that; I've been feeling guilty for never really figuring out how to make use of beachheads.

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,560
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2012, 04:45:10 PM »
Oh, has it?  I'm quite glad to hear that; I've been feeling guilty for never really figuring out how to make use of beachheads.

Yeah, by the time you've built a good beachhead you could have rebuilt your main fleet twice.  It's tough to not have your fleet in there ANYWAY to cover the build.  I really will only beachhead if there's a fortress that's being finicky or heavily protected somehow.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,506
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2012, 04:49:54 PM »
Oh, has it?  I'm quite glad to hear that; I've been feeling guilty for never really figuring out how to make use of beachheads.

Yeah, by the time you've built a good beachhead you could have rebuilt your main fleet twice.  It's tough to not have your fleet in there ANYWAY to cover the build.  I really will only beachhead if there's a fortress that's being finicky or heavily protected somehow.

I'll beachead in only three cases.

1. There is something on that planet I want, but I don't want to take the planet over for whatever reason. Right now, the most prominent example of this is knowledge raiding in hostile territory, though there may be a few other cases.
2. If the planet is fortified enough that just sending a fleet in there would likely end in failure, but I still need to take it out and there is enough room to setup a beachhead to support an attack.
3. I have nuetered a planet but even the small amount of reinforcements from the AI home, if allowed to build up, would become a problem.

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,560
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2012, 04:54:32 PM »
Oh, has it?  I'm quite glad to hear that; I've been feeling guilty for never really figuring out how to make use of beachheads.

Yeah, by the time you've built a good beachhead you could have rebuilt your main fleet twice.  It's tough to not have your fleet in there ANYWAY to cover the build.  I really will only beachhead if there's a fortress that's being finicky or heavily protected somehow.

I'll beachead in only three cases.

1. There is something on that planet I want, but I don't want to take the planet over for whatever reason. Right now, the most prominent example of this is knowledge raiding in hostile territory, though there may be a few other cases.
2. If the planet is fortified enough that just sending a fleet in there would likely end in failure, but I still need to take it out and there is enough room to setup a beachhead to support an attack.
3. I have nuetered a planet but even the small amount of reinforcements from the AI home, if allowed to build up, would become a problem.

KRaiding I assumed was a whole different ball of wax. :)  But yes, if you call dropping a few fortresses onto a planet plus huge turret banks a beachhead then I'll agree with you.

What turrets do you use in attack support?  LRMs and Snipers I'd assume, just curious though.

I hadn't thought of leaving a beachhead behind as a deterrent to build up on the planet, though it's not a bad idea.  I use my snipers/spiders though on the whipping boy and to protect my systems a lot though, so I'm not sure if I'd want to leave turrets there.  Particularly since they would then send every other system connected to it into permanent alert status.

Though that might have value too, but turrets need supply, so you can only do that on systems hanging off one of your own.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,506
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2012, 05:13:23 PM »
What turrets do you use in attack support?  LRMs and Snipers I'd assume, just curious though.

Well, those two certainly get special emphasis, though I usually build a few of the other stuff to help take care of the things that will inevitably get close to the beachhead.
Fortresses are a big plus, not only for their offensive firepower, but also their ability to repair the defending and/or attacking fleet. If I find myself beacheading a lot, I will also unlock mobile repair stations, due to their superior repair range.

I hadn't thought of leaving a beachhead behind as a deterrent to build up on the planet, though it's not a bad idea.  I use my snipers/spiders though on the whipping boy and to protect my systems a lot though, so I'm not sure if I'd want to leave turrets there.  Particularly since they would then send every other system connected to it into permanent alert status.

Though that might have value too, but turrets need supply, so you can only do that on systems hanging off one of your own.

Generally I will consider doing this for neutered but still high Mk. planets adjacent to my "non-whipping boy" planets (if letting them build up has proven to be an issue for that planet), or in-supply planets in the path to one of my distant outposts. (I like to setup outposts in the late game, near the AI homeworld, so I don't have to travel quite so far for the final assaults, but not have to burn a huge amount of AIP to clear a path there.)

Offline Shrugging Khan

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Blitzkrieger riding the Neinzul Y PzKpfw Tiger!
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2012, 05:20:40 PM »
I used to beachhead all the time, but those times are over.

These days, I just go for the old "surgical blitzkrieg" doctrine. Accumulate forces on one end of the wormhole, send them through, take out priority targets, then either colonise the place straight away if I need it and clean up later, or retreat if I'm done. If the place is full of high-mark mobiles, then I spam cheap distraction units into it perpetually while my Raid Corps move around and blow up whatever needs blowing up.

The only exception are, naturally, K-Raids.

For clearing out rogue threat, I usually use redirector posts and patrol units. Since it's a low-priority task, I don't want to commit immobile assets to it.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,410
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2012, 05:26:14 PM »
I wonder if there were some inexpensive and fast (probably not free/certainly not instant) way to "redeploy" existing turrets rather than a full scrap and rebuild...

But even there, would there be a point with "modern" combat dynamics (specifically speed, range, and how fast stuff dies)?
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,506
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2012, 05:33:40 PM »
I used to beachhead all the time, but those times are over.

These days, I just go for the old "surgical blitzkrieg" doctrine. Accumulate forces on one end of the wormhole, send them through, take out priority targets, then either colonise the place straight away if I need it and clean up later, or retreat if I'm done. If the place is full of high-mark mobiles, then I spam cheap distraction units into it perpetually while my Raid Corps move around and blow up whatever needs blowing up.

The only exception are, naturally, K-Raids.

For clearing out rogue threat, I usually use redirector posts and patrol units. Since it's a low-priority task, I don't want to commit immobile assets to it.

Agreed, "surgical blitzkrieg" is the default strategy with me, unless I have a big enough armada to "bulldoze", in which case, I bulldoze through the planet.
Offensive beacheading is usually saved for the exceptional circumstances, like I cannot afford to divert enough of my fleet for "surgical blitzkrieg", so an offensive beachhead is used to make the small ships I do use for it last longer.

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,560
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2012, 05:49:41 PM »
I wonder if there were some inexpensive and fast (probably not free/certainly not instant) way to "redeploy" existing turrets rather than a full scrap and rebuild...

But even there, would there be a point with "modern" combat dynamics (specifically speed, range, and how fast stuff dies)?

It depends.  I could see a case, particularly in homeworld attacks and the like, where using the main fleet as a covering force while establishing a full force beachhead could be useful, or sneaking them in the back door or something.  I can't see using it often but it'd be REALLY nice if I could just move everything I built for the K-Raid instead of having to rebuild it all over again and give my economy basically a wrecking for each world I K-Raid.  It'd also be neat for being able to reposition your whipping boy, or prebuild defenses to leave behind when you've captured a world.

Actually, I could see a LOT of value in being able to packup turrets and redeploy them.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,560
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Knowledge Spending: Offense vs. Defense
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2012, 06:03:11 PM »
One other problem with beachheading is wormhole guardposts.  You have to build off the wormhole, out of range of those turrets, and that can be problematic.  If you can kill the wormhole guardposts you probably aren't looking at a significant enough threat to beachhead anyway.
... and then we'll have cake.