Matrix Games Forums

Comments from that "other" thread...

Explain to me how having 2 or 3 ships instead of one bigger ship can result in the larger ship being destroyed? As long all ships are designed in the same way except for size, and with the same amount of resources used.

On a tactical scale they are not as potent, I know that. I'm talking about on a strategical/logistical scale. Smaller ships can be constructed faster than larger ships and can be at more places at the same time.


On equal size/resources they are not as efficient in a combat ability. I use more or less maximum ship size for all my combat fleets at the moment.

Next bit is you trying to justify your saying of smaller ships confusing the enemy and some random babble. I'll respond to it with more effort than you put in. NO.

On a strategic scale you can when you send them in to attack enemy infrastructure and freighters, combined with warp inhibitors on some specially designed ships. It is micromanagement since the AI automation does not handle such things very well.

You build ships just big enough to destroy enemy bases. Cheaper than sending your fleets...

Then you say smaller ships are useful in engaging multiple installations at the same time. Just how many installations are you attacking that you need to build smaller ships so you can attack very single one? A well developed enemy system might have 5-10 bases. And an empire woul have a few of those. At any point in the game, you probably have enough economy to attack every single base with the maximum tehnology size ships. Not that it is possible, since the interface isn't good enough that you can attack every installations at the same time.

Might be the case, I have not ventured into the game that far yet that I have had to send hordes of ships into enemy territory. but my strategy has worked against the ones I have encountered so far.

I tend to just have defensive fleets before I go to war to save credits. I then mass produce these frigates (and other fleets) and swarm the enemy as much as I can to disrupt their infrastructure. I might loose some of them but they loose much more. The fleets will engage and fight the enemy fleets.

I don't use the small ships any more for defense other than in some systems that is relatively far away from my bases. Their role is only to engage and stall, not to win. I just keep one perhaps two ships in a system. They use hyper-drives that jump quickly but not that fast, they primarily defend single systems. These are Escorts ships at 250-300 in size. Their main threat is Pirates, these bastards tend to attack in several places at times. So having two ships can be useful instead of one bigger ship, but often I just send one ship.

Double posted.

I'm talk about on a strategical/logistical scale. Smaller ships can be constructed faster than larger ships and can be at more places at the same time.

Strategically, you should be able to build enough ships at maximum size of your tech level, to be everywhere you want a ship to be.
Logistically, the same amount of resources used to build smaller ships is just as fast as one to build a larger ship.

Note that I am being fair because I want to compare, not to push an agenda. I don't compare one larger ship vs one smaller ship in combat, because they have different resource requirements. I assume that they use the same amount of resources and change the number of ships accordingly. So think logically, and compare thing with equal amount of resources. Assuming you have enough construction yards for your smaller ships, everything has the same construction speed per resources. Only that the larger ships are much more combat power per resource used.

On a strategic scale you can when you send them in to attack enemy infrastructure and freighters, combined with warp inhibitors on some specially designed ships. It is micromanagement since the AI automation does not handle such things very well.

I'll respond to this babble with more effort than you put in. NO.

You build ships just big enough to destroy enemy bases. Cheaper than sending your fleets...

You went from saying you want a ship just big enough to destroy an enemy base, to comparing fleets. Does not compute.

Might be the case, I have not ventured into the game that far yet that I have had to send hordes of ships into enemy territory. but my strategy has worked against the ones I have encountered so far.

OK, so you are saying this strategy is an reason for smaller ships. Only that you never done this strategy ever. But it works. Sense, it doesn't make any.

I tend to just have defensive fleets before I go to war to save credits. I then mass produce these frigates (and other fleets) and swarm the enemy as much as I can to disrupt their infrastructure. I might loose some of them but they loose much more. The fleets will engage and fight the enemy fleets.

I didn't ask. Also, this is nonsensical babble, unrelated to anything. You seem to speak in buzzwords that don't mean anything in context.

I don't use the small ships any more for defense other than in some systems that is relatively far away from my bases. Their role is only to engage and stall, not to win. I just keep one perhaps two ships in a system. They use hyper-drives that jump quickly but not that fast, they primarily defend single systems. These are Escorts ships at 250-300 in size. Their main threat is Pirates, these bastards tend to attack in several places at times. So having two ships can be useful instead of one bigger ship, but often I just send one ship.

Why stall, when you can win? If you have more than one ship in a system, you might as well have lesser numbers of more cost effective larger ships. It is rare that systems are close together enough that hyperdriving ships from another system can arrive in time to prevent damage.

You don't seem to really read what I write or choose to not understand, I really don't know which!?!?!

Strategically, you should be able to build enough ships at maximum size of your tech level, to be everywhere you want a ship to be.

No... not if you want to be economical. I just leave one sometimes two ships in a system to patrol. In my current game that is a frigate type ship at size 300 my maximum size is 400 with carriers at 600. These 300 size ships can't really destroy anything but they have good shield, armor and is fast. Their role has been to stall and it has worked.

Logistically, the same amount of resources used to build smaller ships is just as fast as one to build a larger ship.

In my experience it seems to be faster to build smaller ships. In the current game I built a few naval shipyards. Basically just shipyards. About 12 yards for one plant of each type, I think you can even build more yards. Smaller ships don't have that many components and you can build pretty many of them of you like to build a swarm fleet. Though, I have not gone crazy about it in my current game.

I said...

On a strategic scale you can when you send them in to attack enemy infrastructure and freighters, combined with warp inhibitors on some specially designed ships. It is micromanagement since the AI automation does not handle such things very well.

You said...

I'll respond to this babble with more effort than you put in. NO.

Well, you babble all YOU want... I did just that in my game yesterday!!! [8|]

You went from saying you want a ship just big enough to destroy an enemy base, to comparing fleets. Does not compute.

No I did not... you send a ship big enough to destroy a base and not a fleet to do it. I usually send one squadron of a number of ships as their are targets in that system and attack. (scouting and/or intelligence gathering is very important first)
At the same time I would send my fleets or just baits elsewhere to distract the enemies fleets.

Later in the game it might get more true that I need bigger ships. Certain pirate ships are still very powerful and require my best ships to defeat them. But overall my tech level is better than most other empires. I can ONLY speak for my current experiences, not future ones.

OK, so you are saying this strategy is an reason for smaller ships. Only that you never done this strategy ever. But it works. Sense, it doesn't make any.

NO!!!
Not what I said at all... do you read what I write or just assume?
I said I have not sent huge numbers of ships because I have not gone THAT far into the game yet. I have still used the strategy but on a smaller scale because it is still early in my first real game. I'm not saying that things can change down the line either.

I didn't ask. Also, this is nonsensical babble, unrelated to anything. You seem to speak in buzzwords that don't mean anything in context.

Are you for real... [8|]
I'm now not allowed to flesh out my answers because you might get upset... I suggest you don't read what I write then. [;)]

Why stall, when you can win? If you have more than one ship in a system, you might as well have lesser numbers of more cost effective larger ships. It is rare that systems are close together enough that hyperdriving ships from another system can arrive in time to prevent damage.

I have several system where this is the case. There are also some which it is not the case and those are a problem for sure. Why are your mind so arbitrary?
Not all wars is about conquering as they are about just beating them to settle a peace deal. I might not want to overextend myself.

Strategically, you should be able to build enough ships at maximum size of your tech level, to be everywhere you want a ship to be.

No... not if you want to be economical. I just leave one sometimes two ships in a system to patrol. In my current game that is a frigate type ship at size 300 my maximum size is 400 with carriers at 600. These 300 size ships can't really destroy anything but they have good shield, armor and is fast. Their role has been to stall and it has worked.

[/quote]

Um, the point is to be economical... Ok, so you leave 2 ships in your system. Why 2? Why not make it one ship with the power of 2? Afterall you got the tech to do so, correct? Isn't that far more economical? Now they can stall and take twice as much damage without being destroyed. Not that it matters, since usually you can't warp in quickly enough from another system. Though if you are building ships with barely any weapons, it's uneconomical anyhow as you are paying maintenance for a ship that really isn't doing anything till the system they are defending is attacked.

Logistically, the same amount of resources used to build smaller ships is just as fast as one to build a larger ship.

In my experience it seems to be faster to build smaller ships. In the current game I built a few naval shipyards. Basically just shipyards. About 12 yards for one plant of each type, I think you can even build more yards. Smaller ships don't have that many components and you can build pretty many of them of you like to build a swarm fleet. Though, I have not gone crazy about it in my current game.

Why? Why do you always talk about irrelevencies about your game? Why do you cover up your nonsense with random verbiage? Why do you ignore the three lines below this one, where I already explained to you, not to compare one ship with one ship? Instead compare the resources used. If you are building many small ships as you already said, then you can just as easily build lesser numbers of larger ships. Same amount of combat power and resources used, at the same speed.

I'll respond to this babble with more effort than you put in. NO.

Well, you babble all YOU want... I did just that in my game yesterday!!! [8|]

You said, "These smaller ships can often confuse the enemy and that will mean they manage to fire of less offensive rounds or do it in an ineffective way." I ask for an explanation.

Then you said, "According to the in game help it appear that positioning do have an impact on the efficiency of the firepower of a ship. If it means it can shoot less shots or the take longer to fire or are more inaccurate it does not say. I do take it as if it in same way at least have an impact." This makes no sense.

Then you said, "On a strategic scale you can when you send them in to attack enemy infrastructure and freighters, combined with warp inhibitors on some specially designed ships. It is micromanagement since the AI automation does not handle such things very well. "

I feel justified in calling out that you don't explain what your wrote and respond with irrelevent, inaccurate and nonsensical replies. Hence babble.

You went from saying you want a ship just big enough to destroy an enemy base, to comparing fleets. Does not compute.

No I did not... you send a ship big enough to destroy a base and not a fleet to do it. I usually send one squadron of a number of ships as their are targets in that system and attack. (scouting and/or intelligence gathering is very important first)
At the same time I would send my fleets or just baits elsewhere to distract the enemies fleets.

What is this? We are talking about ship sizes. So apparently a smaller ship is capable of destroying a base, but if you designed larger ships, you would send a fleet to destroy a base. And then you carry on to say you send a squadron of ships anyways. Which is totally different from what a fleet means! You make no sense.

OK, so you are saying this strategy is an reason for smaller ships. Only that you never done this strategy ever. But it works. Sense, it doesn't make any.

NO!!!
Not what I said at all... do you read what I write or just assume?
I said I have not sent huge numbers of ships because I have not gone THAT far into the game yet. I have still used the strategy but on a smaller scale because it is still early in my first real game. I'm not saying that things can change down the line either.

Yep, that is exactly what you said. And then wrote it again. But then you say that is not what you wrote at all. lol. This is getting ridiculous.
Shall I break it down for you?

You have a strategy.
It involves sending out small ships to every base the enemy has.
You use this strategy to justify smaller ships.
You say "but my strategy worked against the ones I have encountered so far."
You have never done this before.
Your reason for not doing this is becasue ou haven't gotten fair enough in the game (whatever that means), and that you have done this on a smaller scale (meaning that you never done this before).
This doesn't change from the fact that you propose a strategy that you have never done.
And you propose this strategy to justify smaller ships.

Except it doesn't anyways, as long as your economy is strong enough, that you can build a larger ship for every base.
And the interface isn't good enough to do so.

I'm now not allowed to flesh out my answers because you might get upset... I suggest you don't read what I write then. [;)

That'll be because your fleshing out involves distraction and makes no sense.
And since your "fleshing out" are dispersed across 2 threads and many posts, prcisely because you don't explain anything, they are hard to link up.

Example; saying that it's economical to use more resources to defend a system. And with that "economical" more amount of resources, it can only stall, so you have to use an even greater amount of resources just to defend that system.

Example; comparing attacking with one smaller ship with many larger ships. Then you say you attack with many smaller ships anyways.

Example; talking about many smaller ships confusing an AI so they shoot less, and you did it yesterday! Only that I can't work out what you did yesterday, as you never explained it, and then talked about soemthign else.

Example; a strategy, you have never done, but you assure me that it works.

You repond to logical reasoning with irrelevent nonsense, which doesn't hold up when examined on what they mean.
In fact, that's all you do, resplendent with smilies.

Sadly, because they make no sense, it takes more effort to explain why they don't make sense than it does for you to type them.

Unfortunately you are wrong on all your interpretation and don't seem to actually read my posts. I'm beginning to think you just argue for the sake of arguing.

This will be my last post on the matter...



1. I have used the strategy of sending smaller ships (about 300 size) to engage enemy mining/gas/research stations and civilian traffic. I also used special warp inhibitor ships to trap and destroy construction ships and other civilian ships.

2. These ship was only built for this particular purpose and was retired after that particular war. In this case size 300 or 400 would have accomplished the same thing. so I did save on resources for building a slightly smaller ship.

3. I used scouts to gather intelligence on enemy positions before I even started my production so I could estimate the need.

4. I used my fleets, ships of Carriers (600 size), destroyers (400 size) to bait and destroy part of the enemy fleet.

5. Overall I had less naval firepower than my enemy. They had lot's of firepower tied up in defensive bases and such which I hardly bothered to engage at all. I just destroyed their infrastructure which seemed enough to get a good peace deal with minimum of hassle to my economy.

6. I have only limited experience so I can only speak for that and my ONE single game I have played, are playing with. 1400 stars, 10x10 with extreme cost to technology. I'm up to about 3 in average tech level.

7. I admit things CAN change later in the game, but at the moment this strategy seems to work pretty well. And I don't mind micromanage my ship either when I need to.

There is no discussion when one side is intent on obfuscation.

How about you leave his thread alone if you don't like what he writes or as you say he is 'babbling' on and not making sense.

No need to cause arguments here or take upon yourself to call him out for not making sense, etc. If you think he is not making sense, just ignore his posts.

To provide a more construction tone ...

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB
Although I do seem to experience that the smaller ships get hit less often than my larger ships and bases.

This is not my experience but happy to proven wrong. Can you provide evidence that can be replicated?

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB
No reason to use a sledgehammer to hammer in a nail!

I agree with the concept but still find it most effective to use the biggest size available.

As technology improves, to minimise the sledgehammer, I station less ships around each colony for defence until there is only one, have fleets with smaller numbers ships, and start using Explorers / individual ships to destroy Pirates Mining Bases and eventually Spaceports.

It's only really late game, when one ship of maximum available size is so overpowered that it can take out anything 10x over, that I find this relevant to ship size.

ORIGINAL: Plant
Sadly, because they make no sense, it takes more effort to explain why they don't make sense than it does for you to type them.

Hmm.

ORIGINAL: Plant
Real world economies are unpredictable, but in the real world, tax systems are predictable.

ORIGINAL: Plant
PS GFC as an acronym for Global Financial Crisis? Oh really? It has never been refered to as GFC. Don't make up acronyms please.

ORIGINAL: HectorOfTroy

How about you leave his thread alone if you don't like what he writes or as you say he is 'babbling' on and not making sense.

No need to cause arguments here or take upon yourself to call him out for not making sense, etc. If you think he is not making sense, just ignore his posts.

Yes, how about you leave this thread alone. Or just as you recognise your right to reply to me, you recognise my right to reply to him.

Or you could try reading and replying to him in all earnestness. Then watch has he necromances another thread in an offtopic manner, and every reply is as contradictory and disconnected to what he is claiming to respond to.

And as you sincerely reply to his replies, as you slowly respond down his post, trying to connect the irrelevencies and incoherent reasoning, you arrive at the realization of the abject horror that are his posts.

This is not my experience but happy to proven wrong. Can you provide evidence that can be replicated?

No, with more experience it seem like the size difference on accuracy seem very small. The only time I see this as having a small difference are when you have a ship moving sidewise against someone who shoot a slow weapon such as a missile or torpedo at long range. But the more I play the more I have to agree that the size seem to have very little impact.

I agree with the concept but still find it most effective to use the biggest size available.

As technology improves, to minimise the sledgehammer, I station less ships around each colony for defence until there is only one, have fleets with smaller numbers ships, and start using Explorers / individual ships to destroy Pirates Mining Bases and eventually Spaceports.

It's only really late game, when one ship of maximum available size is so overpowered that it can take out anything 10x over, that I find this relevant to ship size.

This is roughly what I do too now.
My smallest ship tend to be about 3/4 to 2/3 of the biggest available size or so now. These ships are used to hunt enemy mining/gas/research stations or civilian ships. Sometimes to guard alone in places where I have a fleet ready to respond in time. When I keep them at this size then one ship is weaker than one max size but two is stronger then one max size, so they can sort of make sense sometimes. Although they are mainly dispersed or constructed when I need them.

One thing I keep meaning to try, a size limited Stealthed Fleet. Of course this is all dependent on Stealth actually doing something.

Imagine if you would;
- Size 800 Carriers with 7-8 Bays each that need no defenses
- Transports that drop troops before the enemy reacts
- Long range Sniper swarms with Torps/Missiles that suffer no return fire when set to max range

Favors FAST fleet construction and repair. Swarms might overload the games ability to handle all the ships. Likely will want more docking capacity on bases to support increased targets needing fuel and supply.