ship designs in mid and late game - Page 3

vmxa1 · August 13, 2002, 01:41

AoW2 is being called GOTY, by many. I have not quite had the full itch to keep playing and have stopped many times. Not sure why. I enjoyed the original one more, but this one is better in many ways. Better looking, harder to beat, but it has not hooked me so far.

moomin · August 13, 2002, 09:28

AoW2: I think one reason it turns me off is that the new rules for retaliation (only once per turn) makes the überhero path impractical. So now you have to move around a lot of troops all the time.

vmxa1 · August 13, 2002, 11:37

Removing the Town Portal hurts, no more using a uberstack to defend every town and it takes longer to get around. By the time you can get teleporting in all your town you do not need it.

The Mad Monk · August 15, 2002, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Aqa
Problem is that it's not the enough to anticipate most tactics, game designer should anticipate every tactic. As sooner or later, usually sooner, someone comes up with a tactic that can beat the AI every time. Good AI in games like MOO2 should be adaptive. How hard it is to make the game log what the player does("hmm, vmxa1 uses BS with disrupters and kills me, what if I make DS with disrupters and see what happens" or "hmm, this player likes to rush, maybe I should build up defences fast" or "hmm, this player techs up until it attacks and kills all, maybe I should attack first(with force)")? If you get what I mean. Like that super indestructible DS. What would you think if suddenly Psilons attacked you with it...

I think there's slight difference between 'Kasparov beating' chess and 'normal' games

BTW is AoW2 good?(off-topic, but...)

Yes, there is one slight difference; 'Kasparov beating' chess AIs are much easier to build. Chess is an inherently predictable game; there is no randomness, pieces are limited in both number and scope, and the laying field is a relatively small 8x8. All an AI really needs to do is crunch through all the possible move combinations and pick the correct one; the only real problem with this is having hardware fast enough and software streamlined enough to do it in the alotted time.

TBS games, on the other hand, is a different animal all together. Randomness plays a significant role, from the initial placement of the players to the results of combat; units change in number and scope all the time, and in some games the playing field itself can change over time. There is no way for an AI to 'crunch through all possible combinations', or even a significant number of them. We simply don't have the hardware for it. TBS AIs need to use 'rules' to direct their play instead, and the rules are only as good as the designer who made them; if he designs the rules for one style of play, and the human players come upon antoher playstyle that trumps it, the AI is SOL, since it can't modify it own rule set.

So, what we really need is a way to either have the AI be able to modify its own ruleset, or a way to be able to modify that ruleset ourselves, to fit our own metagame.

vmxa1 · August 15, 2002, 20:49

Yes what you say is true, but many improvements to the rules set could be done with ease, in most games. You often see games where the AI failed to do simple things that would be obvious. Experienced players could draw up the set of rules that they go by, many could be incororated. Most of the issues come from a lack of check offs that a player would be using to determine what the next step should be. As you say in some cases this could make for a system req that is too high for the masses. Other times it would add too much time to the creation and increase QA work. It mostly comes down to money, not programming skills.

Garth Vader · August 19, 2002, 12:35

I agree true AI deviousness would be difficult, but most AI fail to do even basic infrastrucure building properly. Or basic optimization in building order, or weapons loadout.

I have always felt that a system where the computer monitors what you do and modifies a template for the AI based on your actions would work well. That way the computer would build infrastructure similar to the player, which would better match abilities.

vmxa1 · August 19, 2002, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Garth Vader
I have always felt that a system where the computer monitors what you do and modifies a template for the AI based on your actions would work well. That way the computer would build infrastructure similar to the player, which would better match abilities.

That may be a good idea, but I suspect that it would be a lot harder to implement. Also what if the player was using poor tactics?

Garth Vader · August 19, 2002, 14:44

Also what if the player was using poor tactics?

Than the AI wouldn't need ideal tactics to beat him. By modeling it's play on the user it would get better as the player got better.

It would be harder to implement than the cheating that they do now, but not as hard as other options.

vmxa1 · August 19, 2002, 15:08

The way most programming is done, is to see that something is need and then to come up with any way to accomplish it, not worrying about if it is a good way, just quick and doable. I have done it a hundred times, what comes to my mind first, lets try it. Whoops that did not work, now what. This is because you are under pressure of time.

xoham · October 29, 2002, 16:00

Some of my favorite late game doom stars.

One ship I make I call the Boarder or Grappler. I fit it with whatever will make it move the fastest, especially the sub space tele if I have it, then with a few heavy death rays, then with troop pods and the transporter. In a big battle, this doomstar will, on automatic, take over enemy doom stars in a single turn. It breaks the shield down, kills most of the crew (if not all), then transports over. If they enemy ships are any good, this really reinforces your armada quickly. Without the sub space transporter however, the AI doesn't seem to want to use the transporters much. It seems it doesn't want to use them unless it can get the ship close enough in one round.

For an all around ass kicker, I like energy absorber, damper field, and reflection field if I've managed to get them all from Antarans and/Orion. The ship barely gets scratched. In fact some enemy ships destroy themselves with their own plasma cannons which is really funny. I might also add any of the damage enhancers if they are available. I rarely choose repair technology because my super ships hardly die this late in the game and the biggest battles are over in only a few rounds. I assume a lot about what technologies are availble here. Last game, with an not-creative race, I couldn't make this ship. Most of my battles were with titans.

For weapons, my new favorite is a heavy disruptor with autofire. I find that plasma cannons and stellar converters do way too much damage to the planets' populace on auto. If I'm gonna bother taking the planet, I want all the colonists. By the late game, I have most combat done by automatic because I am in three fights a turn and the micromanagement starts to get irritating.

vmxa1 · October 29, 2002, 17:15

Disrupters with mods are a powerful thing as are phasors. AP phasors come early and chew up ships. You can design a DS that can take out the max number ships allowed in the game all by itself. I think it was described in this thread, not sure if it was this one.

Sikander · October 30, 2002, 06:21

A few points...

1) Those ships with dampers, heavy armor, reinforced hull, energy absorber, and auto-repair units are tough to be sure, but there is one weapon system that will cut them into scrap heaps. That weapon is the Ion-pulse cannon. Without shields to protect your ship it goes right to work on the systems. Once it hits your drives, boom, your ship is gone and other's near it are damaged as well. The AI uses it, but by the late game it is usually completely phased out. Playing against a human you would have to worry about his little cruisers packed with Ion-pulse cannons, which could shred a large ship.

2) I like shield piercing phasors and armor piercing mass drivers (a lot). They are rendered less useful by hard shields (which negates SP) and heavy armor (which negates AP) respectively. The Achilles targeting unit is wicked, it bypasses armor (making Heavy Armor and Armor Piercing obsolete) and acts as sort of a mini-Ion-pulse cannon by increasing the chances that one of your shots will bypass enemy structure (armor is always bypassed) and hit your systems directly. If that system is your drive, goodbye.

Against the AI I usually use these designs:

Mid Game:

A Titan or BB with

Battle Pods
Battle Scanner
Inertial Stabilizer
ECM Jammer
High Energy Focus (if available)
Multiphase Shields (if available)
Structural Analyzer (if available)
Shield Capacitor

The main batteries consist of as many Mass Drivers as possible, all Heavy, AP, AF.

As few Ion Pulse Cannons as will destroy an enemy ship in one go. This will vary depending on what your typical opponent has, and whether you have developed the auto-fire option for your Ion-pulse cannons.

Any extra space is used for pd weapons.

This ship design does a fair job in most situations. The Mass drivers take down enemy shields and the Ion-pulse cannons destroy the ships. The mass drivers also do a fair job at shredding enemy star bases (which the Ion-pulse cannons cannot destroy, as they have no drives to overload). For planetary attack I simply use a few missle cruisers or destroyers (a fast missle rack, battle pods and as many fast, mirved missles as will fit) who fire their salvo in the first round and then run away. The missle barrage does enormous damage, and by the time it hits the BBs have destroyed the enemy fleet and battle station.

In the Late Game I tend to have these sorts of ships:

Titans with,

Battle pods, Achilles targeting, Structural analyzer, High Energy Focus, Multi-phase shields, Hard Shields, Shield Capacitor, Inertial nullifier and...

A whole heap of Heavy Automatic Fire Shield Piercing Phasors.

Two or three of these will be formed into a task group with a command ship, usually a Titan or a BB with:

Wide Area Jammer, Warp Interdictor, Phase Cloak, (and a bunch of other defensive stuff)

It's only weapon will be a Stellar Converter, which with to take down the planetary defenses. It does so two at a time. Two task groups could thus take down the planetary defenses in one fire phase. One thing that I haven't tried yet is to add hyper X capcitors to these babies, that might just make the whole thing better. It's hard to get this stuff crammed onto a BB, so I either have to build a command Titan from scratch, or use retrofitted BB hulls with less stuff on them (like a cloaking device instead of a phase cloak), and instead of th Stellar Converter, a shitload of bombs.

I don't use the time warp facilitator, as it seems like a cheat to some extent. If I use Death Stars at all, it is just in the mop up the game phase.

vmxa1 · October 30, 2002, 13:20

I have never use multiphase shields or hard shells, never had the need. I can not recall running into them from the AI. modded disrupters and phasors will take down any ship I have ever seen used by the AI. I have use hyper -x for fun in a DS. Normally I do not build them. I do it when in a huge uni and I want a converter to destroy planets so they will not be colonized again.
Anyway any number of ship designs can be effective. The beauty of phasors and disrupters is you will have them, some of the other items will not be available to non creative races. I never have Ion Pulse as non creative.

Garth Vader · October 30, 2002, 15:04

I have used Hard shields, and the AI uses them if it gets them in my games.

I have often run onto AI's that use transporters a lot, and since I often play telepathic I have crappy GC, so I need hard shields.

vmxa1 · October 30, 2002, 16:13

It really does not matter what they put on their ships, when you go after them for termination you will smash their ships regardless of what they use. BB with phasors and disrupters are going to kill any AI ships it mets. The only thing that hanga fire is how many and how fast. I will often drop the AP mod in late game and not use HV either to get more guns in as I will close on them. If they are giving you trouble look at what they are using and go with the antidote. I mean hard shells is 3500 rp right, by the time any AI has it researched and implemented, you are just messing with them. I like to send my fleet out on a thinning out mission to engage all large fleets and eliminate them. Now the AI still has planets but has to build ships from scratch.

Garth Vader · October 30, 2002, 18:34

I have had a lot of games, especially on impossible and custom AI races where they have researched the whole tree by turn 230 or so.

That produces huge AI fleets that I can't touch until I have finished researching.

vmxa1 · October 30, 2002, 22:48

I am sure you can see any number of things with use of the editor to make map and civs. I have seen them show up with big strong fleets in T250 range, but they had not finished the tech tree on me, if they had, I am toast. I tend to rely on staying alive to about that point and then start to thin them out (non tele). I am making better ships than them at that point. (impossble level) When I get smoked, it is usually much earlier than that time. Last time, it was klac as neighbors and they showed up with a fleet too big for me (turn appx 115), but is was not an advance design, just more than I had.

BraerFox · November 6, 2002, 13:26

Cannons (not Hvy) are great for point defense. Just 2 or 3 will end worries about missles and fighters/bombers.

AF disruptors or plain disruptors are great for knocking down the planetary defenses. But, for ship killing, even in late game I still prefer Phasors. By the time you get that far up the tech tree, miniturization has set in, and you can pack a lot of them into a titan. When possible use ATU and SA, as it becomes very lethal.

When referring to "EMP" as bypassing armour, I presume you're reerring to emissions guidance. If not, please enlighten me.

vmxa1 · November 6, 2002, 14:37

Braefox, all that you say is true. I do not worry much about PD. When I go on the offense, I do not expect them to do much damage and I can take the lose of a few BB anyway. Ipack as many phasors or disrupters as I can and then blasters as an after thought or cannons.

bazi643 · November 6, 2002, 14:54

true!
but why disrupters?
does anyone know a more effective waepon than heavy, autofiring phasors???

vmxa1 · November 6, 2002, 15:02

Phasors are often ineffective against planets late in the game. I stick phasors on my BB and disrupters on my titans. One DS with 1 converter todestroy planets. Now I can handle anything. Phasors for ship to ship, disrupters for planets.

bazi643 · November 6, 2002, 15:17

youre right,
phasors are not the most effective weapon against planets, but they are that effective against all other things that i dosnt makes much diiference. i think planets are not important, because a missile base or something does not do much damage and is even whith a phasor destroyed easily ( exept a clever computer did build a barrier shield, than its usefull to use other weapons)

the converter i use only to destroy planets, because than its impossible to recolonize it.

Sikander · November 7, 2002, 04:34

I usually use batteries of both weapons on my ships in the late game. This makes it simpler to divide the fleet, or for a ship to use it's disrupter to knock down the shields of an enemy vessel and it's phasors to do the main damage when the AI is using a lot of hard shields and other shield enhancements (as happened to me recently). The stellar converter is nice, as it once and for all solves the planetary defence problem.

vmxa1 · November 7, 2002, 14:39

Sikander you are correct. The only thing for me is I will start my final purge and will not split my fleet. I may take a few to do a job here or there.

bakalov · November 12, 2002, 11:06

For the late game the most destructive ship in my opinion is:

The 5 offensive specials:
Achiles Targeting
High Energy Focus
Structural Analyzer
Rangemaster Unit
Battle Scanner

+ heavy auto-firing Disrupters (miniaturized if possible

You can also throw in Hyper X Capacitors for double firepower for first turn (and battles with such ships does not last longer usually :-)

Such ship punches through the planet barrier shields too

Another clever ship is one having time warp facilitator + phasing cloak - if played properly the enemy may be unable to target it.

vmxa1 · November 12, 2002, 15:19

True, but I never use rangemanster and seldom achiles, in favor of extra weapons.
TWF can use cool. I do not use Hyper X much.

bakalov · November 14, 2002, 03:33

For Mass Driver / Class I discussion

I usually get mass driver and class III. With auto fire and good computer and/or battle scanner mass drivers are pretty powerful for the early game ....

vmxa1 · November 14, 2002, 04:16

Quote:

Originally posted by bakalov
For Mass Driver / Class I discussion

I usually get mass driver and class III. With auto fire and good computer and/or battle scanner mass drivers are pretty powerful for the early game ....

Yup that will work early. Here is the sad tale for us non creative races.
Ecm Jammer - Mass driver - Class I shields
Warp dissapator - Radiation Shield - Class III

The first one is one you can take any one and I will not argue. None are great. Since I have no computer and won't have any for awhile, I am in no great rush to get Mass Driver as it will not hit much without a good computer. Class I gives only a 10% boost and it will not be boosting much as I will not have much armor anyway, so I am willing to skip it also. Lately I have started to use the jammer, I did not use to. I am not sold on any of this stuff and will chance as things dictate. What is going on, am I attacked and by what, if no one them take the jammer.
I have stumbled around on the next one as I often want that rad shield for radiated planets, but if I skipped Class I, I hate to skip Class III as well, but I have when I hought I could get away with it.
So you see how I am not often in a position to use that ship as I am missing the computers and may not have a shield or even mass drivers. It is rough to not be creative. The saddest part is you do not get auto fire until the weapon has had two miniturizations. Non creative will have a longer wait for this and not get it soon enough to be used on lasers or mass drivers. More pain, very sad. This why I often have to resort to ships with no HV mounted beams in the early going, only way to get enough to do serious damage.

bakalov · November 15, 2002, 05:04

If I play uncreative I would not take negative (-) Ship Attack Bonus; Then a leader with weaponry + Battle Scanner can compensate for the worse computer .....

I can't understand why you are saying that an uncreative should wait longer for AF modifications? When you Research Force Fields III you will get auto fire on mass drivers, no matter what tech you picked. And a non-creative race will have 8 more free race picks which should be used to gain another advantages :-)

I would definitely take Mass Driver, Inertial Stabilizer & Class III. If you have Class III and inertial stabilizer you can rotate your ship during battle to take damage with all shields and it will be very difficult to kill. This is in addition to the defence boost. Pd AF Mass drivers can be used to kill missiles quite successfully too.
At least the early missiles :-) I always combine Hv + Pd; Another good use of Pd is when you see that you are winning and want to capture an enemy ship, you can fire on it only with the Pds and hope to immobilize it and board it instead of killing ....

vmxa1 · November 15, 2002, 14:00

The reason is that you must have researched two size reduction techs. Non creative picks may force you to not get them in a timely matter. It does nothave too, but for me it often does.