It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
VB6 Aurora > Advanced Tactical Command Academy
design vs AI compared to design vs Players
Michael Sandy:
So the prompt for this topic was a base I designed, primarily for colony morale, but intended to be useful as well.
AMM Base class Base 1 000 tons 9 Crew 156 BP TCS 20 TH 0 EM 0
Armour 5-8 Sensors 1/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 16
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 1
Magazine 32
PDC AMM launcher PDC Size 1 Missile Launcher (16) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5 (96 BP)
Bullet Catcher Missile Fire Control FC18-R1 (1) Range 18.8m km Resolution 1 (45 BP)
This design is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 1 sections
An early magnetic plasma era design, with fire control technology salvaged from Precursors, so it is a bit more advanced.
Pretty cheap, I figured. Not the cheapest way to get PPV, but at least somewhat useful. Especially if you had a stockpile of semi-obsolete AMMs to use on the colony. I gave it a single magazine so it could always have a ready load, and to slightly reduce the micro of reloading from colony.
But here is the thing, it is most effective in dealing with large missile volleys. Which the AI tends to do a lot, even if they have extra fire controls they won't generally split fire. But players can do smart things like having some .1 HS MFCs so they have the option of splitting up their volleys to deal with heavy point defense. Or having nearly identical missiles with very slightly different speeds so their volleys are split as they fire. Say, a 5.9997 MSP missile, a 5.9998 MSP missile, etc...
So designing versus a player, you will often want a significantly higher ratio of fire controls than versus the AI.
Versus the computer, if your fleet has enough point defense, you don't really need armor or shields on your missile ships. You can count on the computer to fire missiles at a target until it is out of missiles, at which point they become safe to approach. Players, however, would reserve missiles for point blank attack, or if their opponent split their forces and provided an opportunity to destroy them in detail. Versus the computer, once you have determined the weapon mixes of the enemy ship types, you can often safely approach with a beam armed ship that is just slightly faster and slightly longer range and count on methodically tearing them apart.
But players can do things like suddenly have one ship withdraw, or one ship close, and figure out which ship their enemy is basing their range on, and thereby sneak into range. They can also sandbag in terms of their displayed speed, or simply build a whole bunch of nearly identical ships that are all distinct classes, thereby denying exact information to their opponent.
Players can also both make use of forward observers, and develop tactics for blinding their enemy. The scouting war can be far more involved for players than for the AI. Long ranged EM homing missiles, just as an example.
It is fairly easy to design for flawless victories facing the AI. Use decoy missiles versus their AI, railgun fighters versus conventional missile volleys, and AMM to weaken box launcher volleys, and short ranged missiles to kill enemy beam ships. Easy peasy. But players can conceal their max speed, hold missiles to the last second, choose NOT to use any AMM in order to reserve them for offense, and a variety of other tactics that make equal tech fights likely to involve casualties on both sides.
What other designs and tactics are particular effective vs the AI, but are either useless or unreliable versus players? Or just unbelievably TEDIOUS?
Michael Sandy:
I would also point out that fleets designed for an Arena fight are also very different. Because normal fleets evolve, components are built with earlier technology, to deal with earlier foes. Arena fleets can be designed of a piece, without regards for shipyard costs or shipyard retooling.
SevenOfCarina:
Staged missiles, for one. They offer massive improvements in range over single-stage designs while still having a terminal stage fast enough to counteract point defence, and are thus pretty effective against NPRs, which tend to blob their ships in one region. But against players? They get wrecked - all it takes is a single escort ahead of the main group to shoot down the missile buses before they can launch their payloads.
Jorgen_CAB:
--- Quote from: SevenOfCarina on October 24, 2018, 06:24:53 AM ---Staged missiles, for one. They offer massive improvements in range over single-stage designs while still having a terminal stage fast enough to counteract point defence, and are thus pretty effective against NPRs, which tend to blob their ships in one region. But against players? They get wrecked - all it takes is a single escort ahead of the main group to shoot down the missile buses before they can launch their payloads.
--- End quote ---
I find fighter crafts to be much more useful than multi-stage missile, both against AI and in multi-human campaigns. In multi-human campaigns there is a good chance a multi-stage missile is intercepted before it separates. Stand-off ranges from fighters can generally be much further and safer, plus you get the carrier of the missile back to do the same thing over and over.
I also agree with the arena versus practical application in real terms. There are never going to be a super best most efficient design because designs will evolve through the situation and confinements they are formed in.
One rule cheat is to create five exactly the same missiles and fire them from the same FC. This will make each missile its own salvo... very effective against point-defenses.
There are so many things you can do to game the game that simply make no sense and you simply should not do it. If you played against a real human opponent you just need to agree to which degree these things are fair game. To be honest you know full well when you are using a loophole in the game.
Build all hangar stations and have maintenance free sensors, point defenses etc... then build civilian freighters to tow them into combat using tractor beams. Each hangar can then house anything like a modular ships. Sensors and weapons actually can be used inside a hangar or deployed when needed. This is all a byproduct of how the game rules system works and if you were playing in a competitive environment with no house rules that is what you would see.
This game are simply not designed for competitive play, it is designed for role-play.
Michael Sandy:
I think that 2-stage missiles could be effective against a player, but that they would adapt to it far better than the AI ever could.
That also touches on another tactic human players can do that the AI can't. Humans can bait out missiles and then run out of sensor range, but the computer isn't really good at that. A player vs player missile duel, you also can't assume you will get to make use of your full missile range, because if you fire at maximum range, your opponent might turn away, reducing the effective range by 20% or so.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version