[Discussion] Solving the monohull problem

nosavynada

Newcomer

13 years ago

Jul 12, 2012, 2:06:36 AM

I think I missed something here...I thought Destroyers were still mono hull since it is largest 1CP hull. I think it is better now but not solved when min/max on custom affinity. However as with many strategies there are different ways to win, and until someone loses against another strategy they are less likely to change their opinion. Also on the blocked mechanics - from the cards in the game I stuck me that the blocked is a bonus to the effect but I freely admit that aspect is still in doubt in my mind. Good discussion though.

Draco18s

Newcomer

Draco18s

Newcomer

6 000g2g pts

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 7:32:21 PM

Theuglytruth wrote:
people seem to think monohull is solved, it aint, even on endless[thehardestsetting] i destroy every other culture, and its not due to my great 4x skills.

I destroy every other culture too, and it's not because of mono-hull.

The Defense Wall card + beams + small amount of flak on a destroyer = win.

I'd ditch the flak (and add more beams) if my card actually mattered against in-flight-missiles after I destroy all the opposing ships.

Theuglytruth

Newcomer

Theuglytruth

Newcomer

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 7:04:57 PM

wow, well Draco18s, you seemed to understand the concept of what i meant by the cards, but rather than give any pros or cons on the idea itself you decide to correct my example, and thats ok. we could spend a couple of weeks picking apart my bad examples,grammer, spelling... after this topic dissolves i will start a thread on that.

people seem to think monohull is solved, it aint, even on endless[thehardestsetting] i destroy every other culture, and its not due to my great 4x skills. its because of monohull and the "not quite right create your own race point system". with a piece of "some racial affinitys are just plain worthless" thrown in, but thats another topic.

all people really need to do on this topic is chime in on wheather they like the idea or not.

Draco18s

Newcomer

Draco18s

Newcomer

6 000g2g pts

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 5:22:02 PM

Theuglytruth wrote:
offense

+20% all weapon damage vs smaller cp ship {block +10%}

-10% all weapon damage vs equal or larger cp ships [block-10%]

it could alternatively read

defense

-20% all enemy weapons damage from smaller cp ship [block+10%]

+10% damage all enemy weapons from equal to or larger cp ships [block+10%]

You don't know how the "blocked" effects works, do you? You've got them backwards. The second card right now, if it countered the enemy card, would be WORSE then if it did not.

(-20% damage taken becomes -10% damage taken, and the +10% taken becomes +20%!)

Only the first line of the four would even be close to correct.

It should be:

Benefit (Block: Bonus Benefit)

Check out the Defense Wall card (the one with the fence). It reads:

+50 Armor per ship (Block: +100 armor)

rickynumber24

Newcomer

rickynumber24

Newcomer

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 4:16:22 PM

I agree with Ingcom1 that the glass cannon problem has pretty much been solved at this point, but I still think the idea behind the cards is pretty cool. I don't think it's any sort of priority, though. Actually, since there seem to be a dearth of Tactics cards, and this is very much a tactical consideration, I'd say either one should be a tactics card, not a defense or offense card.

MODNosferatiel

Informer

"God's in his heaven, all's right with the world." Nerv Motto, Neon Genesis Evangelion

MODNosferatiel

Informer

47 300g2g pts

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 2:48:56 PM

Edited the title.

Igncom1

Craver

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars.

Igncom1

Craver

11 400g2g pts

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 5:11:05 AM

With the increase in strength of defenses, larger ships are easy to keep alive and with the costs associated to building them smaller ones are easy to build en mass.

Arwyn

Newcomer

Arwyn

Newcomer

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 5:05:04 AM

Could you elaborate? Since this still seems to be prevalent, what do you see has changed?

Igncom1

Craver

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars.

Igncom1

Craver

11 400g2g pts

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 5:03:40 AM

I dunno about you guys but i don't feel like its much of a problem anymore.

Arwyn

Newcomer

Arwyn

Newcomer

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 4:53:44 AM

I like the idea. You could also get there by changing the bonuses granted to hulls based on CP size.

For example, real ships in WW 2 mounted guns based on what the hull could handle. So while a destroyer mounted a 5" gun, a cruiser could mount the same number of guns, but they were 8". Battleships could mount the same number of 14" guns and so on. So while the tech was the same (guns, aka kinetic) the damage potential bigger as the size went up due to the larger caliber.

In game terms, you could add a multiplier based on CP size, so while EVERYTHING else is the same, the effect of the systems is magnified by the hull size. So, the bigger hull sizes will hit harder since they can mount larger versions of the system.

Conversely, you could do the same thing with defenses, the larger hull sizes give a bonus to defense due to larger/heavier/thicker armor/screens/flak.

So, it provides incentives for the larger hull sizes, since they can hit harder and take more punishment.

nosavynada

Newcomer

nosavynada

Newcomer

13 years ago

Jul 11, 2012, 4:50:13 AM

So strategy cards to counter the monohull, reason to research (possibly in a different tree to force research in those techs) and there would need to be a counter card as you say to keep the way things work in play. I like it and it could apply to some other ship sizes or types that come later in the game.

Click here to login

Comment

Characters : 0