Quality vs Quanity

[Sabu113]

I'm thinking of it through the scope of Rome total war. In that game, typically in the campaign mode it was almost a rule for me to keep on the offensive. Forcing the opponent to react to your moves along with capturing more nad mroe cities for more and more funding was essential. Ofcourse... the strategy was very vulnerable to your stratagem.

[Darkmark]

The chess analagy is a good one for my playing style too. I always start the exactly the same way in chess, but three moves in it always changes. Same for most RTS'. You see what your opponent does in response to your early moves and you act accordingy.

 

The main difference is those first few moves are very offensive (not me swearing at the opponent, just in case you think that. ), In games it intimidates the opponent, and makes an early victory all the more likely. Chess, played with my starting moves I have before won in only 5 moves. True, he played badly and our second match laster longer, but in most chess games being aggressive early can really put a stop to an opponent forming defensive lines with pawns. The same holds true to RTS', where a strong foward offensive can really make them struggle to build up. Aggressiveness has it's place in both chess and RTS games.

 

My point being, just because you have an offensive start to a game doesn't mean the whole game is going to consist of that strategy. Defensive starts are generally weaker, but defense can work depending on how fast it's put up, and how defensive it actually is. Some people also naturally play better on the defensive, but the fact remains an offensive start is the stronger of the two strategies.

[chewieusma]

The debate of whether a defensive strategy is better than an offensive strategy is not one that can really be won. It is more a matter of preference. If you want to use the chess analogy, I have been victim to many a defensive opening because there is strength in a strong defense even when you think your offense is going to be perfect.

 

The art of strategy cannot be won in a debate, only on the battlefield. I presume we will see many different styles of play and which one wins or loses will certainly depend on the relative expertise of the competitors.

[Grey_Raven37]

Well you can't possibly expect to win a war if you're always on the defensive. You have to attack eventually. It's the only way to defeat the enemy.

[chewieusma]

Well you can't possibly expect to win a war if you're always on the defensive. You have to attack eventually. It's the only way to defeat the enemy.

 

Yes Grey_Raven37, if I do not attack and I wish to just be a peaceful nation always on the defense in a reactionary war, I agree, I cannot win. That is why I like to counter attack. I think that Counter attacking offers 2 specific advantages.

 

1. Once I turn back the initial assault I will be able to attack their weakened force.

 

2. If the enemy has made an assault with all of their forces and I have been able to turn it back, the counter attack will eliminate his forces from the war, and I will knock over planet after planet with orbital control.

 

Now the trick is being able to counter attack a position where the enemy is weaker than the forces that I have which are capable to attack. (That is the mission of my espionage/intelligence teams). Once I defeat the enemy at the point I attack, I will have taken the momentum from my enemy and gained a planet that my enemy has lost. This brings me a 2 planet advantage because my enemy has lost a planet where I have gained one.

[Guest]

Balance for me. Works in both ways. You can tire the enemy with swarms of cheap troops and send the big boys to do the job, or you can send the big boys in the beggining, causing heavy damage, and the swarms of cheapos in the end to clean the rest.

[Sabu113]

The problem with playing on the defensive that I can see in EAW is that the attacker can bring in overwhelming force and there is no natural boundries which allow you to make effective buildups of troops.

[Garbageben]

This game is going to reward those who go out and grab systems aggressively.

 

The more planets, the more credits.

Pop cap is loosely based on the number of planets and buildings on those planets

 

If you try to play defensive with 5 worlds you only have maybe half the income of an offensive player with 10 worlds. That's not to mention that their cap is higher and they can bring in more units to battle.

[Dorkthehunter]

The real strategy comes in when playing as the Rebels(or the Imperials to think like a Rebel "scum"). You don't have the luxury of being able to conquer a lot of planets early in the game, and you can't really win in open combat. What would you do?(hehe)(look @ lucasarts EAW site)

[Sabu113]

I disagree. I think that infact the rebels have even more of a license to conquer, because the imps wont be able to find rebel planets as easily as the rebs find imp planets.(This could all ofcourse be wrong at release)

[Gen.Vader]

This game is going to reward those who go out and grab systems aggressively.

 

The more planets, the more credits.

Pop cap is loosely based on the number of planets and buildings on those planets

 

If you try to play defensive with 5 worlds you only have maybe half the income of an offensive player with 10 worlds. That's not to mention that their cap is higher and they can bring in more units to battle.

 

presicesly the tatic in WW2, the axis hit hard and early, totally wiping out any defences and setting up more territories to really get the machines out for conquyerin. it is surprisin that a country that is like half /3 /4ths the size of the U.S along with italy and an island, can keep the rest of the world on thier toes for 6 years....

[CrushProject]

ill harrass really early and tech if possible in multiplayer. If they dont kill the micro factor ill try use a small initial force to hold off any threat, and tech to proper counters for whatever army he chose. The harrass also serves as recon, letting you know where your opponent would be spending his resources.

 

I hope they leave micro as a big factor in this game. I was kinda disappointed by other games that have used squads or groups of units as singular entities. Without the individual control, alot of control is lost making it a game of counters and macro, not unit control and micro.

 

The current amount of space units (13 per side) isnt an increadable amount either. We'll have to see. Dieing to play the demo and find out!

[Foshjedi2004]

Where did you hear that the Maximum number of Space Units is 13 per side??

[CrushProject]

is the total number of space units seen thus far not 27?

 

edit: thats what the other page said, and i mean different unit types, not population numbers...

[Star Wars Man]

This game is going to reward those who go out and grab systems aggressively.

 

The more planets, the more credits.

Pop cap is loosely based on the number of planets and buildings on those planets

 

If you try to play defensive with 5 worlds you only have maybe half the income of an offensive player with 10 worlds. That's not to mention that their cap is higher and they can bring in more units to battle.

 

presicesly the tatic in WW2, the axis hit hard and early, totally wiping out any defences and setting up more territories to really get the machines out for conquyerin. it is surprisin that a country that is like half /3 /4ths the size of the U.S along with italy and an island, can keep the rest of the world on thier toes for 6 years....

 

I'm going with: using heavy units to attack early, then mop up with a small force of medium and light units. I'd say quality for Rebels and Quantity for Imperials, but that's just me.

[chewieusma]

presicesly the tatic in WW2, the axis hit hard and early, totally wiping out any defences and setting up more territories to really get the machines out for conquyerin. it is surprisin that a country that is like half /3 /4ths the size of the U.S along with italy and an island, can keep the rest of the world on thier toes for 6 years....

 

I don't know if you keep up with current events or history very much, but the Axis Powers lost. They overconsumed and were no longer able to grow. They did not have a viable plan for survival once they rolled over their enemies.

 

Their hard hitting Blitzkrieg did them no good after they took over land. They were forced to spy on their own people because they could not trust the populace. Resistance movements weakened the morale of the conquerors who were then forced to wonder from which direction an attack would come.

 

The Allies had Hitler flinching at ghosts and kept him uncertain as to their wiles. The entire time there were millions ready to pounce on his Northern line just a short way from shore.

 

Now in Europe they had a threat present from some unknown direction and a constant battle on the Eastern front. Japan's efforts in the Pacific were coming to a stand still and the Allies began to take back islands. The Onslaught prepared, but the enemy did not prepare well enough.

 

On the day of the invasion Allied forces fought into occupied Europe and delved deep into the heart of the enemy. With resources spread thin, the Axis drooped and headed across the Seigfried line. The Allies pressed on. The Axis fell.

 

So much for an early Offensive.

[Gen.Vader]

presicesly the tatic in WW2, the axis hit hard and early, totally wiping out any defences and setting up more territories to really get the machines out for conquyerin. it is surprisin that a country that is like half /3 /4ths the size of the U.S along with italy and an island, can keep the rest of the world on thier toes for 6 years....

 

I don't know if you keep up with current events or history very much, but the Axis Powers lost. They overconsumed and were no longer able to grow. They did not have a viable plan for survival once they rolled over their enemies.

 

Their hard hitting Blitzkrieg did them no good after they took over land. They were forced to spy on their own people because they could not trust the populace. Resistance movements weakened the morale of the conquerors who were then forced to wonder from which direction an attack would come.

 

The Allies had Hitler flinching at ghosts and kept him uncertain as to their wiles. The entire time there were millions ready to pounce on his Northern line just a short way from shore.

 

Now in Europe they had a threat present from some unknown direction and a constant battle on the Eastern front. Japan's efforts in the Pacific were coming to a stand still and the Allies began to take back islands. The Onslaught prepared, but the enemy did not prepare well enough.

 

On the day of the invasion Allied forces fought into occupied Europe and delved deep into the heart of the enemy. With resources spread thin, the Axis drooped and headed across the Seigfried line. The Allies pressed on. The Axis fell.

 

So much for an early Offensive.

 

yes, i did know that axis went bye bye, that is why i was saying for 6 years, because after that, they went out like a light.

 

im just trying to show how an quick campaign early inthe game could set up revenue and valuable assests for you later.

 

and about the whole non, preparation.....at least we can learn from thier mistakes

[Sabu113]

I thought the Axis lost because they stretched themselves too thin. Atleast Germany did. Japan's attack for oil rich Islands I think had become a need for them though I am not sure.

[rogueace127]

Well you can't possibly expect to win a war if you're always on the defensive. You have to attack eventually. It's the only way to defeat the enemy.

 

Yes Grey_Raven37, if I do not attack and I wish to just be a peaceful nation always on the defense in a reactionary war, I agree, I cannot win. That is why I like to counter attack. I think that Counter attacking offers 2 specific advantages.

 

1. Once I turn back the initial assault I will be able to attack their weakened force.

 

2. If the enemy has made an assault with all of their forces and I have been able to turn it back, the counter attack will eliminate his forces from the war, and I will knock over planet after planet with orbital control.

 

Now the trick is being able to counter attack a position where the enemy is weaker than the forces that I have which are capable to attack. (That is the mission of my espionage/intelligence teams). Once I defeat the enemy at the point I attack, I will have taken the momentum from my enemy and gained a planet that my enemy has lost. This brings me a 2 planet advantage because my enemy has lost a planet where I have gained one.

 

I agree with this guy.

 

I like the initial defense strategy better. As I see it, most people who like offense in the beginning will throw really cheap, weak units at the opponent and try to cause as much chaos as they can, even if they're killed in the process.

 

This is why I would build a strong defense in the beginning, so that they can take on whatever weak units the enemy sends at me, then upgrade my units to the highest level and then begin my offense. Then I just roll over the enemy, and seizing their resources along the way.

[CrushProject]

Just remember, you cant use defenses to attack, or even move to help other sensitive areas that need aid. The only time a fixed defense works, is where theres a bottle neck he cant get around otherwise.

 

'fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man' Patton

 

EDIT: and what happens if he doesnt attack you right away, or in that region? your investment into the early defenses are wasted. Since everyone was discussing ww2, an example would be the magnot line.

[rogueace127]

When I said "defense", I did not mean fixed fortifications, as building turrets and walls early in the game would be stupid. I meant infantry and tanks and stuff that I would park on the perimeter of my base, while I research upgrades. If the enemy attacks, sucks to be them. If they don't , then once I build up a sizable force, I send all my pre-built units that I used as base defense to attack the enemy.

[CrushProject]

Well either way, we are probly going to have to find a medium early in the game. From what it looks like (imo) you are going to need military strength just to take over neutral worlds. And bigger worlds will probly be more difficult to acquire.

 

This is all conjecture, but how else would this game be nonlinear (as the makers have claimed)? They almost 'have' to add independent 3rd party factions to accomplish this right?

[rogueace127]

They haven't said anything about 3rd party factions, so I'm guessing they won't be in. It'll prolly be nonlinear in that you can choose which system to attack when you're in the galactic world map.

 

And why would you need military strength to take neutral worlds? I would think that diplomacy would suffice.

[CrushProject]

i mean each world would be its own independant faction, unaligned with either team at the onset. Like a creep from wc3 for example, not a complete ai controlled faction. Just a defender of the world if you will.

 

And i cant really see the empire using diplomacy for 'all' its planatery acquisitions, they are a dictatorship after all, with a rebellion already in full swing. Not the happiest circumstances to invite planets to join you. plus they have already stated that alot of alien unit types are going to be in the game, so i would assume that suggests unacquired planets will have defenses of their own that must be dealt with before the planet can be used. Perhaps those units might become available as well once conquered (more unlinearness), but balance issues would be a nightmare in that case.

 

I dont believe that choosing where on a larger map you get to attack could be described as unlinear. In order to have unlinear gameplay there has to be some other way of advancing your forces/power other than direct conflict with the other player. Otherwise its still linear. More strategic perhaps, but still very linear imo.

 

edit: empiresatwar.net also has a 'nonfaction' section thats waiting to be finished to confirm what im saying about neutral units as well.

[chewieusma]

imo - I basically agree with Crush on his last post and I would like to add that I think that right after the enemy takes a nuetral planet is one of the best times to attack because they will have recieved resistance from planetary defenses. They'd also have to displace a fleet to attack the planet so they will have become weak in an area. Everytime the opponent makes a move he leaves something behind.