Amateurs think strategy, Generals think logistics

[darke]

the OBVIOUS solution (imo) is to have missiles not work at all in non-supplied planets

Which makes missiles even less useful then they currently are.

Ok, if this were a topic about missiles i'd even ask, what are missiles even good for? Who uses them?

Me. Continually. In fact there's even an entire thread a couple of days ago about them: http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,1380.0.html In fact there was a recent nerf to armoured missiles to "fix" one of my over-usages.

I, personally, have never build anything but lightning missiles (to clean wormhole exits) - i do not use other missiles, and especially not timed effect missiles (the effect these do is paid with more blockaded wormholes and more enemies!) and with that i mean EMP and Tachyon (a scout ship finds cloaked stuff, and emp.. well most of the stuff you really want to get out of the picture is EMP immune ;p)

I find EMP's only real use is for the perma-mines, but it's way too short to be useful. If it were 5 minutes it might be worth it, but 30 seconds is way to short for pretty much anything. Even on F&D.

Tachyon is actually useful if you're going up against the mine-AI's since it helps with the bulk "where are all the mines?" leaving you to worry about cleaning them up later with a scout.

Nukes are a waste - nothing is worth +50 progression ,

You have not played against seriously hard/well-defended AIs.

once you get through the wormhole you can ALWAYS maintain a beachhead, and clean the sector without 50 progression cost. Which i would consider worth the losses of ships, progression is the enemy, not resources.

Let me rephrase that, you have not played against any even vaguely challenging AI's. Especially if you really have never encountered this, even on the AI's V home worlds.

- Lightning Missiles come now in 3 strengths costing 2 - 4 and - 6 progression with only 50k hp but speed 80 (strengths so that missile type 3 can clean ships up to MKIV with 1 hit) etc.

The health of lightning missiles was recently upped from 250k to 600k because they would die almost instantly when being sent through a wormhole with a reasonable AI defence. 50k health means it probably won't even stand a single attack from a starship, the things they were apparently designed to kill.

Of course the fact that lightning missiles only barely scrape the paint on a starship now with the extra health they have does kinda defeat the purpose, but that's a current balance problem, not one trying to be created.

- Missiles (including nukes and all other missiles) do not work outside supply (they shut-down and can not be detonated/controlled)

Again, this makes them even less likely to be used, why are you trying to limit missiles' use even more when you're complaining that you don't use them much in the first place?

- Tachyon does no longer cost progression / is no longer planet wide

Tachyon missiles were requested partially because cleaning up all the mines and other hidden ships by an AI was a total pain in the arse once you've actually properly conquered a world. If you remove the planet wide effect, suddenly they're no better then any of the other localised effect ships. Which removes their only real use compared to scout starships and such.

[Haagenti]

Let me rephrase that, you have not played against any even vaguely challenging AI's. Especially if you really have never encountered this, even on the AI's V home worlds.

Mmm....fighting words! Sometimes it is a real pity that this game only comes in co-op

The health of lightning missiles was recently upped from 250k to 600k because they would die almost instantly when being sent through a wormhole with a reasonable AI defence. 50k health means it probably won't even stand a single attack from a starship, the things they were apparently designed to kill.

I would actually pay good money for a lightning missile with 1 hit point (well...as long as it came with immunity to snipers) to gaurantee that it explodes exactly in the middle of the .wormhole, the microsecond that it emerges.

- Missiles (including nukes and all other missiles) do not work outside supply (they shut-down and can not be detonated/controlled)

The Daisy-Chain has not yet been proven: it's a theory. So I wouldn't nerf barely usable stuff yet.

- Tachyon does no longer cost progression / is no longer planet wide

I would advocate the removal of progression since I don't use them now. But as Darke says, the planet-wide makes them unique.

[x4000]

The idea of missiles, in general, is that they are a last resort.  "The first man to raise his fist was the first man to run out of ideas," or something along those lines.  This is actually also the point with mercenaries -- they are ancillary units that are meant to be poorer-than-average choices that are only used under duress.

Right now Lightning missiles are actually getting way more use than I had ever expected, and that's okay, but I'm not exactly wanting to encourage more missile use on a wider scale.  The tachyon, EMP, etc, missiles are very highly specialized, and sort of last-resort options for a few specific edge cases.  Through expansions and such, I hope to add a greater variety of edge cases that will make them more generally useful, but I don't want to bring them more into the mainstream scenarios just because they will then be pretty overpowered.

Armored missiles cost what they do for the reasons darke mentioned, they are pretty well indestructible.  Most players will never use an armored missile, certainly not on the very highest difficulties.  However, they do have a purpose!  Basically, they allow for a (costly) correction to a few long-term mistakes.  This is their function.  If you leave a warp gate open on a planet for a long time, and it gets 4k+ higher-level ships on it, then it can be almost impossible to go kick the AI off of that.  Especially if there are force fields that are inopportunely-placed.  If your home planet, or an important resource producer, happens to border this sort of entrenched AI planet, then in the past (before armored missiles) you essentially had no choice but to either a) ignore this, and keep getting pummeled by waves in an inopportune spot, or b) try to take that planet, which often would take multiple waves and over an hour, plus a lot of losses and exposure in other areas. 

Armored missiles are the solution to that problem, letting players do a (very expensive) precision strike against an extremely-tough target that can't be taken care of by any other means.  I think it's well balanced in terms of cost-to-benefit for that function; the fact that you don't see a general use for them is expected, and speaks well of your playing ability that you've never backed yourself into such a corner.

In AI War, with some of the more fringe ships (advanced warp sensor, armored missile, maybe a few others), the idea is not that these are useless, but rather that they are something of either a) a safety net, b) helpful to new players, c) useful in some very fringe cases that don't often come up, but nonetheless do exist.  The majority of ships in the game I want to be as general-purpose useful as possible, but there are a few that are very niche and will likely remain so.  I think this adds a bit of spice, knowing that there are options there that are useful in some very specific circumstances, but not in general.  Books like Ender's Game are filled with examples of clever one-off strategies where the situation was just perfect and so the commander did something unusual with the normally-not-too-useful parts he had lying around, to great effect.  Having these sorts of edge cases and ships presents the possibility of such brilliant flashes for players, as well as solving the specific edge cases I designed them for.

[darke]

Let me rephrase that, you have not played against any even vaguely challenging AI's. Especially if you really have never encountered this, even on the AI's V home worlds.

Mmm....fighting words! Sometimes it is a real pity that this game only comes in co-op

You wouldn't find me playing a non-coop multiplayer game of this if my live depended on it. I find playing RTSes against humans tedious and predictable, at least a computer AI has randomness to keep me interested.

Seriously though, even in my AI7 games I was having issues with getting, let alone keeping a beachhead when going through a wormhole. Especially when you've got a IV planet nearby that manages to crank up 3k worth of ships that you somehow has to systematically exterminate since that's the only path to an important item. I still maintain that if a player is *never* being challenged by the AI after getting through a wormhole onto a new planet, then there's something wrong with either the AI, or the difficulty level they're playing at being too low.

The health of lightning missiles was recently upped from 250k to 600k because they would die almost instantly when being sent through a wormhole with a reasonable AI defence. 50k health means it probably won't even stand a single attack from a starship, the things they were apparently designed to kill.

I would actually pay good money for a lightning missile with 1 hit point (well...as long as it came with immunity to snipers) to gaurantee that it explodes exactly in the middle of the .wormhole, the microsecond that it emerges.

I wouldn't mind a wormhole vaporizer (say something that did extra-damage against turrets, but not so much against ships), with those capabilities. The problem is at my difficulty level of the game, even the 600k health missiles explode pretty much the instant they get to the other side of the wormhole, especially on IV/V worlds. I still have to distract them with armoured missiles first.

[Haagenti]

Seriously though, even in my AI7 games I was having issues with getting, let alone keeping a beachhead when going through a wormhole. Especially when you've got a IV planet nearby that manages to crank up 3k worth of ships that you somehow has to systematically exterminate since that's the only path to an important item.

Agreed. And its horrible to lose part of your fleet to the wormhole, having a big fight and having to retreat to get reinforcements. Usually that is your Stalingrad: you have not yet lost, but you are not going to win anymore.

I play against a level 8 Teleport Turtle, and these are pretty nasty, even in the first hours. I shudder to think what a 3K ships level IV planet will do.

I wouldn't mind a wormhole vaporizer (say something that did extra-damage against turrets, but not so much against ships), with those capabilities. The problem is at my difficulty level of the game, even the 600k health missiles explode pretty much the instant they get to the other side of the wormhole, especially on IV/V worlds. I still have to distract them with armoured missiles first.

Most of the time that is what I want: explode at the wormhole. And I explode 2 to get rid of those friendly III Lightning Turrets if there are many of them. Fortunately they are capped at 400K hits.

[eRe4s3r]

The difficulty has no relevance on my comment - if you'd play on AI 7.6 (example) or AI 10 or AI 5 - there is no difference, a strategic calculation is "What do i gain, vs what do i loose vs what good does it do me in my campaign" - And a Nuclear missile costs you 50 progression + 20 Progression to neutralize a world - thats 70 progression. You gain - A Destroyed world, cleaned planet, you loose - Resources / Ability to build a beachhead there / Progression Increases, is that worth it?

I am also challenged by blockaded wormholes, but like Haagenti i came to the quick conclusion that only lightning missiles are worth to be used (Against lightning turrets). And because i am challenged (its not like blockaded wormholes only happen at dif 10 ,p) and because Missiles are supposed to be a last-resort weapon (unlike blockaded wormholes which are aplenty) i suggested wormhole bombardment ships.

To prevent Exploitation Data Centers should become immune and missiles limited in range. But in turn they trade that with less or no progression costs and higher damage. Wouldn't that make missiles more used? (Unless there is a blockade breaker ship)

In the end, lightning missiles might even be a off-runner in their use, if missiles are, like x4000 said, last resort weapons, then lightning missiles do not fit in that. But before there is a nerf of them there needs to be a way to clean blockades ;p (hence i wrote i wouldn't put this down as a suggestion) Obviously missiles have their place in this game, But reading all this i come to the conclusion that x4000 never intended lightning missiles to be used as spammed blockade breakers.

[darke]

The difficulty has no relevance on my comment - if you'd play on AI 7.6 (example) or AI 10 or AI 5 - there is no difference, a strategic calculation is "What do i gain, vs what do i loose vs what good does it do me in my campaign".

So you would *never* make a different strategic decision based on difficulty level? If you were expecting attack waves of 2000+ MkII ships to a single planet in the first hour of gameplay you wouldn't pick your research tree differently (strategic decision!) at all, compared to attack waves of 400+ MkI ships in the first hour? (Hint: You probably want MkII Tachyon Turrets at the very least.)

And yes, pretty much every AI10 game I have 2000+ MkII ships to a single planet in the first hour.

Difficulty level is one of the primary things that requires you to alter your strategic decisions. AI types is another. Galaxy layout is another. Saying that difficulty level makes no difference as to how you pick and use your units, or the differences in choice you make makes as much sense as saying that there's no gameplay difference to playing against 2 turtle AI's vs 2 raider AI's.

- And a Nuclear missile costs you 50 progression + 20 Progression to neutralize a world - thats 70 progression. You gain - A Destroyed world, cleaned planet, you loose - Resources / Ability to build a beachhead there / Progression Increases, is that worth it?

Actual game scenarios:

Game 1: The following was my galaxy setup:

III(Adv Research) - III - II - II - II - I - Homeworld - III - (rest of galaxy)

From my homeworld I'd taken out all the planets up to the III with Adv Research on it, whilst successfully defending my homeworld against the attacks from the III planet between me and the rest of the galaxy.

Problem: III-galaxy-gateway had over 3000+ III ships, on it along with a pile of IV and V.

My first attempt was with lightning missiles. It took me a bit over two hours to clear the planet by which time the AI had built up over 2000 ships on it's two adjacent planets to that one, one of which was a III and one a II.

So I loaded up my game two hours previously, dropped a nuke onto it, then continued on only having to defeat a handful of V ships on the planet, and less then a thousand ships on the two adjacent ones, all in under half an hour gametime.

Game 2: I had located the AI's two homeworlds with a tachyon scout, after having properly fortified my area. There were two ways to get there. Though a IV world adjacent to one of the first worlds I captured (it had maxed out at around the 4000 ships mark, and was rapidly converting it's IV's to V's by this time), or though a round about path of 5 worlds, each one of which I would have to emplace on and properly clear adjacent world's gates so I could defend easier against the massive waves getting thrown against me.

So at minimum it would have cost me either 70+20 to nuke the IV, or 100+10 per adjacent world gate to take the long way around.  And a lot more time, which costs AI. And resources because of lost ships. And requires me to garrison them so I lose maximum potential offensive force.

If I went the minimal direction and just handled it via taking over every-other-planet due to supply issues, it would have cost me somewhat less, but would still have cost serious time, resources, and attention that I wasn't paying to other areas of the game. (Plus left a massive planet of nasty ships to ambush me at some point.)


I can think of a few more examples but I can't be bothered detailing them. You seem to think that any unit that isn't of much use at whatever easy-mode difficulty level you're playing at has to be useless, so if I don't change your mind with these, more isn't going to help.

[eRe4s3r]

Ehm, I asked you if its worth it to use nukes (that was a question, not a statement!), i didn't imply anything at all! You seem to focus on something i do not even debate Missiles have their place ^^ But should that place be blockade breaking? (Thats a question!)

But i get it, you seem to think my opinion is worthless, just because i only play at most at dif 7 (and i disable progression gain by time because thats an anti-turtle counter, nothing more, i like to turtle though ^^

This is what i wrote above, which you skipped entirely. -

Blockades should be no-progression cost to clear, because blockades are something that only INCREASES the more progression you have. Hence, Nukes or Going around (at these progression costs), are 2 strategies that i would not consider viable. In that case you describe i would surrender honestly. Because Homeworld 2 is 9 jumps away in 1.301 and you can neither afford 70 or 110 progression, which would push you into Tech 3 before reaching Homeworld 2, and you will agree that that is very bad.

[darke]

Ehm, I asked you if its worth it to use nukes (that was a question, not a statement!), i didn't imply anything at all! You seem to focus on something i do not even debate Missiles have their place ^^ But should that place be blockade breaking? (Thats a question!)

From your previous posts:

Ok, if this were a topic about missiles i'd even ask, what are missiles even good for? Who uses them? And what for, with what tactic?

Question, which I answered.

I, personally, have never build anything but lightning missiles (to clean wormhole exits) - i do not use other missiles, and especially not timed effect missiles (the effect these do is paid with more blockaded wormholes and more enemies!) and with that i mean EMP and Tachyon (a scout ship finds cloaked stuff, and emp.. well most of the stuff you really want to get out of the picture is EMP immune ;p)

Statement. This I explained, in detail because I agree with it.

Nukes are a waste - nothing is worth +50 progression , once you get through the wormhole you can ALWAYS maintain a beachhead, and clean the sector without 50 progression cost (actually more). Which i would consider worth the losses of ships, progression is the enemy, not resources.

Statement. This I refuted, therefore it's obviously open to debate since you are saying something that's different to me, right? Also if nukes are waste, how can they "have their place"?

I am also challenged by blockaded wormholes, but like Haagenti i came to the quick conclusion that only lightning missiles are worth to be used (Against lightning turrets). And because i am challenged (its not like blockaded wormholes only happen at dif 10 ,p) and because Missiles are supposed to be a last-resort weapon (unlike blockaded wormholes which are aplenty) i suggested wormhole bombardment ships.

There are no questions in here relating to blockaded wormholes, only statements. None of these statements I particularly agree or disagree with, so I didn't make any comment about them.

As to your *current* question, "should they be blockade breaking?" I believe yes they should. Since the whole point of things like "nukes" is so you can get past a particularly tough wormhole.

As for lightning missiles, their original intent was to damage starships, which they currently seem pretty much useless for since starships now have massive amounts of health, and doing 5% damage on a ship for +2AI (plus the resource cost and time of building it) seems to be a bad investment on my part. So currently their main uses for me is to clear up entrance wormholes, and take out particularly annoying command points, such as those under forcefields.

If we eliminate this use for them, then they really don't have much of a niche at all, so I'm more inclined to fix their anti-starship problem before trying to fix this one.

But i get it, you seem to think my opinion is worthless, just because i only play at most at dif 7 (and i disable progression gain by time because thats an anti-turtle counter, nothing more, i like to turtle though ^^

This is what i wrote above, which you skipped entirely. -

No. I'm not complaining that you play at AI7, I'm complaining that according to your statement that "once you get through the wormhole you can ALWAYS maintain a beachhead, and clean the sector without 50 progression cost" means you're playing against an AI difficulty level that *isn't* challenging you enough, thus you've never had to use the "weapons of last resort" such as the Nukes.

If you're having fun at that difficulty, then good for you. But that does not mean that nukes are "a waste" because you're never in a situation that needs them. This is what I've been saying.

Blockades should be no-progression cost to clear, because blockades are something that only INCREASES the more progression you have. Hence, Nukes or Going around (at these progression costs), are 2 strategies that i would not consider viable. In that case you describe i would surrender honestly. Because Homeworld 2 is 9 jumps away in 1.301 and you can neither afford 70 or 110 progression, which would push you into Tech 3 before reaching Homeworld 2, and you will agree that that is very bad.

Every game I've won so far at either AI7, AI8 or AI10 has been with an AI progress level high enough that I was getting MkIII enemy ships either after destroying the first CoreV planet or more often then not a few planets before the first CoreV planet. In fact most games I tend to be getting close to 1000 AI progress by game-end.

Honestly I find this obsession with keeping the AI progress level as low as humanly possible to be quite perplexing. If you're (generic "you're", not eRe4s3r's "you're") playing using Haagenti's methods and keeping the AI progress inhumanly low, then there's a benefit, but once you're in the middle there's no real reason to be too paranoid about increasing the progress level.

If you're taking twice as long as a consequence of keeping your AI level a hundred points below your current level, the AI is going to hit you with twice as many waves, and twice as many reinforcements of nearby AI planets are occurring. So you're trading off something you can see for something you can't see, which seems to be a less optimal path to me.

[Phyrex]

I agree completely with making at least some missles free of AI progress. Otherwise a lot of people will simply never use any.
A local EMP and anti cloak missle seem great and only makes the game more tactical.

[Velox]

I agree completely with making at least some missles free of AI progress. Otherwise a lot of people will simply never use any.
A local EMP and anti cloak missle seem great and only makes the game more tactical.

     This would be nice.  I've yet to use a missile, as I have an (irrational?) fear of AI progress increases.  Causing a progress increase is one of the few actions in the game that can't be undone/worked around (likewise with tech unlocks) and I hate taking irrevocable actions that could be mistakes.  Still, warheads are cool, so it would be fun to have some that were a part of normal play for neurotics like myself.  Although I guess as a unit type they are intended to be a when-nothing-less-terrible-will-suffice weapon of last resort for breaking stalemates, so a progress-free warhead would break that conceptual purity.  Nuts.

[Spikey00]

...Or, go with Spikey's Doctrine!  Brute force + Brute force = WIN. 
What you have less in quality, you can always make up in quantity!
+ 1000 Colony Ships
+ 300% Build Rate
+ 200% Resources
- 9001% AI Progress.