Does anyone use a "Beachhead" Strategy?

[Wingflier]

It seems that certain units and defenses in the game would make this (in theory) possible, but I'm not convinced of its practicality.

The anti-sniper and anti-missile turrets could make building a forcefield and small base on a contested enemy planet a reality, but is there any point in doing this when (in most cases) you can simply take fleet ships in and accomplish the same thing with much less hassle?

I'm just curious if anyone uses or has ever used a beachhead strategy, or if its just more of a pipe dream on higher difficulties.

[TechSY730]

Are you talking about a beachead as in a remote planet you capture for yourself but don't capture surrounding planets to make it a new "cluster"?
Or are you talking about setting up a base of operations while the AI command station is still there.

If it is the former, I use this strategy all the time, especially in the late game when I need to prepare my armies for homeworld assualts.

If it is the latter,

There was a big discussion a while back about defense, and the viability of beacheads were a part of this (see http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,10143.0.html). Basically, the inability for turrets and forcefields to work outside of supply really hurts this. However, no one has thought of a way to allow this without it becoming abusable, annoying, or too complicated (a few ideas were tossed around the previous thread, you can read up on those)
Also, many good players do not let the AI's defenses build up enough such that you need a beachead. That, and the AI has a tendency to focus almost all of its reinforcements on alerted planets, leaving non-alerted, non-core, non-homeworld planets pretty pathetic and thus easy to "park" a fleet there without a beachead.
And finally, a single chokepoint defense model is so attractive that it can be hard to convince players to dedicate a few turrets and forcefields to use on an offensive beachead.

So yea, beacheads work, but in the current balance, it is rarely needed until the late game.

If you consider bringing along and occasionally parking in hostile territory a neinzul encalve starship + mobile repairers + cloaker starships to be a beachead, well, I use that all the time too.

[x4000]

It's something that used to be extraordinarily common, and I myself used to do it all the time.  Back in the 1.0 to 2.0 days that was one of the mainstays of the game.

But as things have developed, personally I've found much less need to do that.  Even so, with the warp gates for players it is something that is more viable now than it was in the 4.0 timeframe, for instance.

I'm not sure how many people use this strategy now (I don't anymore), but I thought I'd mention its history.

[Wingflier]

Chris!  I haven't seen you post on the AI War forum for weeks ;p

I wasn't really around much in the 1.0/2.0 days, so I can't comment much on that.

I guess I mean that currently, I rarely (if ever) see a reason to do it anymore.  By the time you've got your "base of operations" built, you could have practically taken the planet by simply blobbing your fleet around. 

If necessary, you can accomplish a similar thing, much more safely, by stirring up the enemy forces (or if you need the planet, taking the home command station), then forcing them to come to your territory instead.

Just wanted to see if other people had thought of something I hadn't.

I'm not sure if I have any creative solutions to make this viable though.  Maybe something in the next expansion could make it worthwhile again.

[x4000]

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.

[TechSY730]

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.

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.

And with AI Waves just appearing out of wormholes, any defences put up as part of a beachhead get bypassed.

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]

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).

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.

[Cyborg]

  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

Would you be able to answer some questions on a few of the sword of the stars tactics, off-topic forum (are you experienced with some of the more advanced maneuvers)?

[keith.lamothe]

  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

Would you be able to answer some questions on a few of the sword of the stars tactics, off-topic forum (are you experienced with some of the more advanced maneuvers)?

I wish.  I was barely able to get my spinal-mount-beam-weapon ships to actually shoot something during the brief window between the hiver fleet (which was almost totally unscathed by the massive storm coming from my missile satellites due to incredible point defense) entering energy range and it overflying me to bomb the planet.

Generally I found victory the normal 4X way: out-research and out-industry my opponents, swarming them with ships of such size and power that I could crew them with caterpillars and still win (auto-resolve could even do a decent job some of the time).

That said, I'd love to know how to play SotS combats like I knew what I was doing.  As it was I could approach a modicum of competence and that was a lot of fun.

[Mánagarmr]

For a moment, I thought you were referring to the plot Beacheads. I still have nightmares about my first encounter with those.

[snelg]

I remember doing beachheads with towers and shields and the like back when the ai had towers. especially on the homeworlds. I think the reason I don't anymore is because by the time I'd have any sort of towers and shields up the battle is already over and they're either already destroyed or I got the planet neutralized. The guardians being much more mobile than the towers used to be is probably part of the reason.

[Bognor]

If anyone wants to use beachheads, try playing against a Grav Driller AI.  A cluster of quickly built Missile and Sniper Turrets works wonders against any in-supply planet with a Gravity Drill.