Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had these thinkings in my mind for extended period of time but I am not confident to speak it out loud. Although i play roughly 2-5 games every week depending on the number of players i come across, I realize that I will not have enough sample size to confirm it. Hence I am posting here after some 'testing' and look backs. I am grateful if you give me ideas or the phenomena in your group.

proposition #1. 3er game outcomes mainly depends on what the group picks.
(a)if 2 players choose a simcity race and the other military, two simcityers are likely to win
(b)if 2 players choose to military and the last one to simicity, the simcity guy is highly likely to lose.
(c)if all players go simcity or military, no conclusion.


SimCity races are: hydrans, dracos, plantas and to some certain extend turtle mechanemas
Military races are: eridani, orions and to some certain extend offensive mechanemas and humans.
These classification is discussible but the main point is simcity or military.

The logic behind is simple. for (a), a military race is likely to kill someONE. So if one simcity player is killed, the other one will be let to boom and he will be matchable and likely out-marco the military player. No, the military is highly unlikely to kill them both at the same time or one after another except with some extreme luck.

For (b), obvious. the juggernauts will divide the weaker, even they do not attack it explicitly but do virtual pinning and threating.

proposition #2: nerving the missiles makes science player stronger. particularly hydrans. The more your nerf, the more problematic they are. To some certain extend orions also.

Forget about Eridani.

Again it is simple. the popular variant that requires the missile with N energy is the same. Every weapon now requires energy. Energy requires science. And hence.

I would like to invite all those who play a variant on misslies it out. Particularly

(1) those who apply a missiles variant requiring it more energy
(2) those who play in a group with misslies variants but do not believe that it is overpowered at all.

My honest opinion is: missiles are good. They are a good catalyst to enlarge the lead but nowhere near IMBAlance.

proposition #3: the best techs in the game are actually improved hulls, advanced robotics and quantum grid. Missiles WITH/or +3 computer is only tier 2.

While the two hockey pucks are obvious, obviously unstoppable except you (hostilely) buy it before someone, improved hulls justifications are the follows:

1. It is cheap. 3/4 science
2. It voids all ion cannons. Do not tell me that you have problem massing hulls
3. It makes all plasma cannons ‘on par’. Quotations are put because they require energy. Hulls do not.
4. It is extremely effective against missiles itself. Most cruisers, dreads and starbases will have at least one hull. In case of mass missiles. Just put 2 more hulls or even fill all spaces with hulls.
5. In case someone get missiles with +2/3 computers, you have 2 options. Go for wormholes or shields while wormhole is a better choice.
6. Get antiwallofhull cannons, the player loses. Unplug the hull for the win.

proposition (or corollary soon) #4: improved hulls are imbalanced in games with missiles nerves.

Obvious. #2 and #3.

Discuss and data. Prove or disprove. Will check spellings and grammar again when I have time. Tired now after 4 games. I do not know if it is in the correct category or not. Move the thread when deemed necessary.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gleb Semenjuk
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One small remark. in our group, Mechanema is as military as possible. Why turtle with dirt-cheap ships?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gleb wrote:
One small remark. in our group, Mechanema is as military as possible. Why turtle with dirt-cheap ships?

Mechanema can play either direction (Monoliths are cheap too), and I think Hydran are flexible as well (better research = better ships).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Chamberlain
United States
Tracy
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: proposition 1: I sounds to me like you play group is focusing too much on what they think their race is designed for and not focusing enough on what the current game situation requires them to do in order to win the game if it is always playing out that simply.

Re: proposition 2: I've read many of these threads about plasma missiles being over powered. I've never had a problem with them, and have never considered nerfing them.

Re: proposition 3: advanced robotics and quantum grid are obviously powerful techs. I've won without them even when other players had them. But it is difficult. Improved hulls are nice, but hardly necessary. Their importance in a game really depends on what other military techs people have been researching and how they have been building out their ships.

Re: proposition 4: as i said in proposition 2, i've never found any need to nerf missiles, so I wouldn't know.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Klintus Fang wrote:
Re: proposition 1: I sounds to me like you play group is focusing too much on what they think their race is designed for and not focusing enough on what the current game situation requires them to do in order to win the game if it is always playing out that simply.

Re: proposition 2: I've read many of these threads about plasma missiles being over powered. I've never had a problem with them, and have never considered nerfing them.

Re: proposition 3: advanced robotics and quantum grid are obviously powerful techs. I've won without them even when other players had them. But it is difficult. Improved hulls are nice, but hardly necessary. Their importance in a game really depends on what other military techs people have been researching and how they have been building out their ships.

Re: proposition 4: as i said in proposition 2, i've never found any need to nerf missiles, so I wouldn't know.


for the record

i keep proposition #1 to myself only most of the time so i do not know my group thought of it or not to be honest. so it is me at most (singular), not "you" (plural). and of course this is the reason why i ask for data and experience from other group. this proposition can also be extended to larger games as every player could be viewed as a 3er meta game with 2 neighbor.

i also disagree to apply ANY missiles variant but those propositions has been made up through observation in other groups with missiles variant and after actually having a few game in our group where not even one missile is drawn, not intentionally 'not draw' them or removed from game though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfaulk80 wrote:
Gleb wrote:
One small remark. in our group, Mechanema is as military as possible. Why turtle with dirt-cheap ships?

Mechanema can play either direction (Monoliths are cheap too), and I think Hydran are flexible as well (better research = better ships).


To add, I would say Hydran are absolutely flexible near late game when they gather up a lot of tech or with some luck they get actions and weapons in early-mid game. But then except if they are very successful in their early harassment, I think hydrans are better off sitting back chilling early-mid game, particularly smaller games when reputations are not drain as fast as in 6er.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quirky One
msg tools
I think this is the main problem with missile related discussions.

Non military strategies compared to mostly military strategies are a little over powered. The only real counter to this is playing Orion who has a good chance to find at least one victim who fails to get IH and can procees to crush them or get PM early and crush a slow starting player.

If there are only good players around the table Orion or any one else going for a military strategy will have problems, since everyone keeps their guard up. And so military strategies are too weak. The only way to win by military strategy is a really quick blitz combined with some luck against ancients, or combine it with good production or science and just add a little military action. The third option are ofcourse PM.

With such a point of view it is not PM that are OP it is other military strategies that are completely sub par. And since the only real threats against a turtle player is one of the above, IH is the best way to defend. You can get them early, no need for other techs and you can fight of PM fairly well and since IH are so cheap you can keep up with your other strategy at the same time. You can even use them to fight ancients.

So IH are a little OP, I agree.

If you only look at PM compared to other offensive military techs they are definately OP, but mitigated by the fact that IH are almost as OP and the whole military strategy needs something like PM to be valid they might be needed.

Finding a nerf that makes IH a little less powerfull, improves PC a little and AMC alot would be nice.

Maybe it just is AMC that needs a buff (cost 3 energy?), then IH would not be quite as attractive and PM would be less mandatory for a military strategy.

But still the mechanic of PM where they don't take any losses when they win, even if they win by a slight margin is a little boring. But I can live with that if I got to see a fleet full of AMC now and then and not only ancient killer designs with PC in the beginning and then IH or PM designs later on.

And remember in a six player game, not everyone has IH to counter a PM barrage, so they are even more sought after.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quirky1 wrote:
I think this is the main problem with missile related discussions.

Non military strategies compared to mostly military strategies are a little over powered. The only real counter to this is playing Orion who has a good chance to find at least one victim who fails to get IH and can procees to crush them or get PM early and crush a slow starting player.


wrong. regardless of any strategies, the most important thing is situational awareness which so many lack it. always hit the guy that has to be hit. in the multiplayer sitting, if one militarist fails to realize that he has to beat the turtle right next to him, this is instant king making and that player will have way higher chance to win.

Quirky1 wrote:

If there are only good players around the table Orion or any one else going for a military strategy will have problems, since everyone keeps their guard up. And so military strategies are too weak. The only way to win by military strategy is a really quick blitz combined with some luck against ancients, or combine it with good production or science and just add a little military action. The third option are ofcourse PM.


wrong. why do u think setting up a army threating out others is a bad strategy? as long as the militarist occupied the GCD early he is in a good position. people have to at least build up to defend or he will be wiped from the game delaying orbitals and lots of other investments while the militarist can go on alien hunting or harassing neighbors when he didnt manage to have full track reputations.

the only problem is that in 3er people could dodge diplomacy and completely seal up himself delaying the jaggernout which comes in way earlier in 4+. yes, you can dodge diplomacy in 4er but then set back in having no diplomats would balance it out. as mentioned.

Quote:

With such a point of view it is not PM that are OP it is other military strategies that are completely sub par.

le sigh
Quote:

If you only look at PM compared to other offensive military techs they are definately OP, but mitigated by the fact that IH are almost as OP and the whole military strategy needs something like PM to be valid they might be needed.


Finding a nerf that makes IH a little less powerfull, improves PC a little and AMC alot would be nice.

Maybe it just is AMC that needs a buff (cost 3 energy?), then IH would not be quite as attractive and PM would be less mandatory for a military strategy.

no one needs a nerf on hulls in the standard game. not even me. is it that you have a special hobby of nerving everything whoever say the word "overpowered" somewhere in the context?
Quote:

But still the mechanic of PM where they don't take any losses when they win, even if they win by a slight margin is a little boring. But I can live with that if I got to see a fleet full of AMC now and then and not only ancient killer designs with PC in the beginning and then IH or PM designs later on.

And remember in a six player game, not everyone has IH to counter a PM barrage, so they are even more sought after.

in a 6er game it is less of a problem because of easy ganking. and hulls itself do hold missiles in spam amount.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.