How Do I Kill This Ship

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • The trick to 4x speed is to get into a rhythm while maintaining the initiative. For me, I like to takeout one player every day (or 4 in game days). I don’t attack anyone until I have around a 2 hour window to micromanage the campaign, usually right before going to sleep. In two hours, I usually can wipe out an opponent’s capabilities for battle, especially early-mid game.

      Right before hitting the hay or going to work, I withdraw most of my navy and air force to a safe defensive location, and, if the way is clear, plot the routes of my national guard to swarm territories. Right as I’m getting of work (by this time the morale of captured cities is up), I maneuver my navy, air forces, and ground troops to battle positions so that when I get home, I can launch either a new offensive or continue an assault. And the cycle continues.

      The important thing is to be the one that attacks first. I cannot stress this enough. By attacking first, you decide how/when/where the battle will be fought, which is quite more decisive than in 1x speed.

      PS. Having a good Air Force can really help because of they are easy to micromanage, scout, re-stack, concentrate, and maneuver in 4x
    • KFGauss wrote:

      and then fight decisively in one or two places (that I choose) - Of course the enemy gets a vote too. X/
      Not much of a vote, though.

      dfrost wrote:

      i was reading on the forum that people were suggesting 4x games for new players. i really don't see it. i think if a newbie chose a 4x game from the beginning, they would quit. yea, they would have to learn fast, but that doesn't mean they would learn....
      Ummm... depends on what we mean by "new", I guess. As I think I mentioned recently, Rank 1 players didn't use to be able to play anything but 1x Flashpoint. That kind forced folks into some appropriately paced learning right at the beginning. At a certain point, though, you'll have all the foundational information/knowledge down, then you'll be left just needing to experience some things. 4x can get you to new things faster when you're ready for that.
    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      The important thing is to be the one that attacks first. I cannot stress this enough. By attacking first, you decide how/when/where the battle will be fought, which is quite more decisive than in 1x speed.
      I defintely do get what Aeneas is saying here, and I don't completely disagree, but I do disagree a little bit. The element of surprise and playing on your time versus your opponent's time are definitely valuable and important in 4x because of how fast things happen and because of how much game time you have to spend offline. That being said, I don't feel like that always has to mean being on the offensive. You can choose to play defensively and still manipulate your opponent so that the fight happens on your chosen terms.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Sounds like you had some fun

      In the picture I see that your artillery are in two different places - There are obvious reasons to split your original four units into two pairs. And there are reasons to keep them together.

      When you reorganize for your next fight - Here's something to think about.

      I like to keep units like those together so that I can kill one enemy unit/stack (that I choose) as quickly as possible (a one-shot kill creates a nice little endorphin rush), and then move to the next. Lather-rinse-repeat.

      I do that because instead of fighting on several fronts at once I like to stabilize everywhere, and then fight decisively in one or two places (that I choose) - Of course the enemy gets a vote too. X/

      YMMV


      i have to admit, i had a blast! yea, i actuallly wanted to keep them close in 2's but even that was hard. the reason why i didn't put them all in one was because his airforce was hitting HARD from the front. there were also mountains protecting his l3 base which was a bitch. so my front units died while it gave me time to work around from different sides to spread out his attacks and spread the damage out. i had a couple fights with active players my first game but none like this. i walked all over his ground units. it was his air that was so vicious.

      so although i lost a lot in this battle, i gained a lot of knowledge. like researching air superiority fighters. i thought i would go all in on strike fighters.

      now i am about to attack this unknown remaining ship before the new day with my mobile artillery....and yes....i am going to group my remaining 3 together :)
    • dfrost wrote:

      i just found out what this guy has with my recon unit. that unknown ship has 4 corvettes for 80hp. my artillery says it attacks for 1.5 damage to ships per unit haha damn.....
      Pretty much any stacked Airforce could kill those corvettes if you have an Airforce consisting of more than a couple of planes, Naval works well
      I'm not sure you have an Airforce, though
    • dfrost wrote:

      i have to admit, i had a blast! yea, i actuallly wanted to keep them close in 2's but even that was hard. the reason why i didn't put them all in one was because his airforce was hitting HARD from the front. there were also mountains protecting his l3 base which was a bitch. so my front units died while it gave me time to work around from different sides to spread out his attacks and spread the damage out. i had a couple fights with active players my first game but none like this. i walked all over his ground units. it was his air that was so vicious.

      so although i lost a lot in this battle, i gained a lot of knowledge. like researching air superiority fighters. i thought i would go all in on strike fighters.

      now i am about to attack this unknown remaining ship before the new day with my mobile artillery....and yes....i am going to group my remaining 3 together :)
      When planning where to put your Artillery, don't forget that Mountains can give you an attack advantage that can make up for the slow speed they inflict on you.

      Tifo_14 wrote:

      dfrost wrote:

      no. unfortunately i don't have one yet or naval although i just started my l2 port and almost done with my strike fighter research.
      After that you should research naval strikers, if that ship is still buggin' you.
      Tifo isn't wrong, but ... I almost never research Naval Strike Fighters, because A) In my public games I usually build a ton of regular SFs and I can get the job done just fine 90% of the time using those regular SFs, and B) Until late in the game I always have something else that I need to (or want to) research or construct before I invest time and resources into both researching the NSFs, and creating the buildings required for producing them (I think they require more than just a level 2 airbase). In the 10% of the time that I wish I had some NSFs, I can usually manage to come up with an inelegant solution that doesn't require them.

      More simply, in my public games, the NSFs' attack/defense stats and the damage-distribution advantages over SFs are rarely important enough for me to fool with them. Other successful players love them and can tell you/us how wrong I am ^^ .

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      The important thing is to be the one that attacks first. I cannot stress this enough. By attacking first, you decide how/when/where the battle will be fought, which is quite more decisive than in 1x speed.
      I defintely do get what Aeneas is saying here, and I don't completely disagree, but I do disagree a little bit. The element of surprise and playing on your time versus your opponent's time are definitely valuable and important in 4x because of how fast things happen and because of how much game time you have to spend offline. That being said, I don't feel like that always has to mean being on the offensive. You can choose to play defensively and still manipulate your opponent so that the fight happens on your chosen terms.
      Oh absolutely. There are situations in where it is advantageous to remain defensive as long as you are active at that time. Otherwise it usually ends rather badly.
    • yea, i don't think the debate of offense vs. defense is going to won by either side anytime soon. in sports like basketball and football, i think defense wins games. they definitely don't lose them. in single player sports, i don't think putting all your eggs in one basket is wise and it's better to be balanced than an expert in any one area. why? because i don't think it's wise to box a boxer or wrestle a wrestler or even attempt to compete with anyone who is an expert in that area. instead. go for their weakness so in a game like this, my strategy will always be trying to be balanced, know the opponents weakness and expose it

      this is why i wont be going for the naval fighters., sure they are good in one area but not good enough to be usefull for everything else i'm gonna be doing within my balanced strategy. i can easily create something more of something at the same cost to overcome. 1 person and 4 corvettes isn't going to change my whole strategy and if i can get players to do that and change theirs, i know i will probably win the battle.

      part of my last strategy with this guy ws to talk to him through pm. i sent him messages and i looked at the time when he responded. my strategy with this is i wanted to know when he was awake to i can possibly attack when he was asleep. i think it woulda worked if he didn't attack me first. i noticed he responded to my messages at around 5pm so i didn't want to attack anytime near there. i was going to attack at 2am. i don't know if he was psychic or what but he attacked me around 10pm. and personally, i don't care about giving away any specific strategy. sometimes giving away a strategy can be a strategy. like in boxing where you wind up with one hand in the open and strike a punch with the other.

      for me personally though, i don't have the patience to wait around or provoke a fight. it's already a war. the more time i spend on resources, the more time my opponant has to build up theirs. and although defense is good, i feel like a game like this, a more balanced approach is better. like driving and being a good offensive and defensive driver at the same time. learning how to be defensive is easy but with offense, you have to push the limits, and with driving it means breaking the speed law sometimes haha and passing cars on a two lane highway. so what i am probably going to be end up doing is trying to notice what other people are doing and doing the exact opposite.

      doing the opposite worked as planned in my last battle. i walked over his ground units and my mobile artillary was good enough to strike away at him over time to weaken him before my other ground units beat his air. now that his air is gone, i am eating away at his hp with my artillary against his 4 corvettes until my strike fighters are built which will be in 4 days(which i was planning to build anyway) although i am building a navy now too, i am not gonna box a boxer so i am not going to attack with navy now that his fighters are gone

      most of the time the most obvious and easiest solution is not the best solution. that is why naval fighters wont work for me in this situation. after i posted this, i had to think of how to get rid of these annoying ships. i didn't know if it was a ship, a sub, how many etc... until i realized he is sitting in shallow water for a reason and it wasn't to attack me. it was to heal.....and i have a recon vehicle that can tell me what he has. then i had to think long and hard this last 24 hours to figure out how to get rid of his 4 corvettes and my overall game strategy because my mobile artillery isn't gonna cut it. he's going to heal too fast for my little mobile attacks. i know that time is on my side and not his.

      this dude hasn't moved from his position so it's pretty annoying seeing him there. if i knew i lost, i would at least be more annoying and move my ships every 12 hours....especially a lot further away from any ground units that can attack. he knows i don't have air or sea or he knows i woulda attacked with them already.

      and although i talk about a more balanced strategy, i also know too much of a good thing done excessively is usually a downfall so the balanced strategy needs balance too haha and although i plan on being one of the better players in this game, i wont be so naive to think i'll be the best. if there is one thing i learned being competitive, it's that no matter how good you are, there will always be someone better. this goes along the lines of never underestimating anyone and never being complacent. keep the ego in check and just play the best you can and try to have fun doing it.

      i know this is my first game and other players will be able to wipe the floor with me, but i am gonna have fun doing it and losing to them because i am gonna be learning a lot from it until one day i DO beat them. all thanks to them because they never thought by beating me, they were teaching me something at the same time that would eventually be their demise. it's sorta like poker. you try to hide your hand but there are signs for those who pay attention so although i will be more offeniive, if i know a player plays defense, i will try to get him out of his rabbit hole and play offense which i know is his weakness. i do that and i win before the real battle begun. at that point i can play offensively as planned or if i feel he's stronger than i thought, i can play defense as long as he keeps up his offensive. playing more balanced allows for an adaptive strategy. playing more offense or playing more defense doesn't.

      so yea, i don't think anyone is gonna succeed in the long debated topic of what is better.....offensive or defensive.....but it's always gonna be fun thinking about it....and in this case writing about it even if it's a little long winded.

      hope i didn't bore anyone....haha
    • In this game, though, we're not talking about vague philosophies like "defense wins championships" or "the best offense is a good defense", we're talking about actual numbers (bonuses, etc.) that support defense more than offense. For some units and in some cases, offense and defense can be equal or offense may even be superior. In a greater number of cases and with a great number of unit types, however, defense has the advantage. It's not an opinion; that's how the game is made.

      You mentioned trying to figure out when your opponent was offlline and attacking him then. That's a popular thing in this game. Personally, I'm against it. Obviously, I can't say that I never attack anyone when they are offline, because there's not always a way for me to know one way or the other. Plus, my play time happens when it happens. I'm just saying that I don't try to figure it out.

      I have a couple of reasons for that:

      1) It doesn't feel very sportsmanlike to me. I play for the challenge of matching my strategy against that of other players. Sure, it's easier and safer to take shots at a player who is offline, but if I think back over all the games I've played, I realized that I've had the most fun when my opponent and I were both actively attempting to outmaneuver one another;

      2) Movement/activity often exposes more vulnerabilities. I want my opponent to take risks and make mistakes. I want them to react spontaneously and fueled by emotion rather than taking time to plan and rationally consider options. I want to take down transports and moving caravans rather than tying to pry out an entrenched force.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      In this game, though, we're not talking about vague philosophies like "defense wins championships" or "the best offense is a good defense", we're talking about actual numbers (bonuses, etc.) that support defense more than offense. For some units and in some cases, offense and defense can be equal or offense may even be superior. In a greater number of cases and with a great number of unit types, however, defense has the advantage. It's not an opinion; that's how the game is made.

      You mentioned trying to figure out when your opponent was offlline and attacking him then. That's a popular thing in this game. Personally, I'm against it. Obviously, I can't say that I never attack anyone when they are offline, because there's not always a way for me to know one way or the other. Plus, my play time happens when it happens. I'm just saying that I don't try to figure it out.

      I have a couple of reasons for that:

      1) It doesn't feel very sportsmanlike to me. I play for the challenge of matching my strategy against that of other players. Sure, it's easier and safer to take shots at a player who is offline, but if I think back over all the games I've played, I realized that I've had the most fun when my opponent and I were both actively attempting to outmaneuver one another;

      2) Movement/activity often exposes more vulnerabilities. I want my opponent to take risks and make mistakes. I want them to react spontaneously and fueled by emotion rather than taking time to plan and rationally consider options. I want to take down transports and moving caravans rather than tying to pry out an entrenched force.
      yea, i definitely hear what you are saying about philosophies i am just talking about my first game experiences what i am going to choose to apply in my next game from my learning experiences including bonuses which i really have to pay attention to and was trying to very hard in this last battle. i remembered it was one of your first suggestions you had for me and i was trying hard to remember what my bonuses were so i would keep checking my battle tanks and my artillery. everything was happening so fast it was hard for me to remember when i was so focused on other things that were distracting me. but that's what made it fun. the heat of the moment and the learning experience.

      and i totally hear ya about movements and creating that emotion. i will try to in fact make it somewhat a psychological warefare and get him thinking. that's why i think he attacked me first but i was more prepared for him than he thought. but he still did surprise me. i have to think more on that strategy because and how i would choose to play it because it can be tricky.

      but unsportsmanlike? in war? i don't believe in rules for war haha and if i ever intentionally gave my opponant an advantage i didn't have to give him, it would be my own fault for losing a battle. but just because other people do something doesn't make it right either. i will have to reflect on that one because i have always respected and agree with what you have been telling me. so for you it's s type of rules of engagement i guess and there ARE some rules in war or maybe it's based on the situation. he DID threaten me before he attacked me so i know i felt very less inclined to offer an even playing field. what i said next though was probably a mistake. i told him i could easy rush in and take his airbase and his province with all his supplies so he couldn't build anything. i think i may have went too far with the communication. i dunno. it was a judgement call. i am gonna have to think more on that later but i definatly like to expose emotions. when emotions has no brains haha
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      It is one reason why 4x is less about skill and knowledge, and more about activity.

      Pretty much everybody is easy to beat, as long he is not online and can act.
      damn. you just gave me a vision of what my game might look like when i wake up after sleeping for 8 hours in a 4x game. DAMN! it wasn't pretty haha it's kinda worrisome actually. i don't like that idea at all!
    • dfrost wrote:

      but unsportsmanlike? in war? i don't believe in rules for war haha and if i ever intentionally gave my opponant an advantage i didn't have to give him, it would be my own fault for losing a battle. but just because other people do something doesn't make it right either. i will have to reflect on that one because i have always respected and agree with what you have been telling me. so for you it's s type of rules of engagement i guess and there ARE some rules in war or maybe it's based on the situation.
      I should be clear: I don't necessarily go out of my way to ensure that my opponent is online before I attack them. And there are a number of other things I try to do to cripple my opponent or to take advantage of things they may miss. The thing I am talking about almost definitely isn't that important and may not be as distinct of a thing as it seems to me. In the years I've played this game, I've known and seen people who have purposely tried to determine when an enemy player may be offline because they didn't feel confident they could beat them otherwise. That's the thing that I don't really do or feel very comfortable with.

      Let's say you sit down at 7pm your time, and you're saying to yourself, "I've got a couple of hours to play, let's see what I can get done." Now, I'm not suggesting that at that point you should worry about whether your opponent happens to be online or not. That's fine either way. What I have seen others doing that I would be uncomfortable doing is spending time combing back through old activity reports and messages to try to determine what time an enemy player is usually asleep and to then attempt to try to time my own play so that I can take advantage of that sleep time. *shrug* That difference makes a difference to me. If I was setting an alarm to get up at 2am so that I could hopefully attack my opponent while they sleep, I would have to rethink what I was really trying to get out of the game. What I want is a challenge and competition, but I think sometimes we let "winning at all costs" trump that.
    • dfrost wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      It is one reason why 4x is less about skill and knowledge, and more about activity.

      Pretty much everybody is easy to beat, as long he is not online and can act.
      damn. you just gave me a vision of what my game might look like when i wake up after sleeping for 8 hours in a 4x game. DAMN! it wasn't pretty haha it's kinda worrisome actually. i don't like that idea at all!
      Yeah, 4x is an entirely different animal.

      I don't know that I agree that "activity" is the opposite of "skill" and "knowledge" or that 4x players are definitively less skillful or knowledgable. We do have to go about things a little differently. in fact, now that I think about it, perhaps that's why I embrace defense a lot more than many of the Forum folks. Every real time night, I have to go to bed knowing that an entire day or more of gametime will pass before I log in again. I think that involves a different level of and type of planning than only being offline for 8 game hours at a time.

      It's also my opinion that players in 4x games are a lot more active. We still have a lot of inactives, but maybe a bit fewer than they have in 1x games. Also, in my experience, there are a lot more "live battles" in 4x public games than in 1x public games because of how quickly battles transpire in 4x games. I might sit down for two hours in the evening and actively fight against an enemy for 8 games hours. I'm guessing most 1x players don't actively play for 8 game hours straight most of the time.

      I don't mean to fire up yet another urination contest between 1x and 4x players. I'm just trying to say that I think 1x players tend to *more often* (not always) log in, set up their moves and log out; whereas a greater number of 4x players tend to get online and play out an entire battle/offensive. As Kalrakh says, in that way, 4x players are probably more active, but I don't know that I think that means they are less skilled or knowledgable in general, I just think it means they tend to be a little more involved.


      Oh, and although I definitely don't ever WANT to do this in a 4x game, I was offline for more than 4 straight game days (over 24 real hours) the other day. I didn't lose any land/units; I maintained the lead; and I'm still winning (soloing) that game now. Now, obviously, I can't always guarantee that outcome, and there probably was a certain amount of luck involved, but I'd also like to think that it is due at least in some part to how I had things set up. You just have to learn to protect yourself during offline time a little differently when you're playing 4x.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by PerigeeNil ().

    • yea, you gave me so much to think about now. working on defense in those games makes so much sense to me. i am glad i am not playing one of those games right now because i really like offense. hell, is ANY game when you know people like to take the offensive, defense is going to be key and such great defense bonuses.

      the drawback is when i have such great defense, i probably wouldn't want to move much and stay in my security blanket haha

      when i am reading posts like this, i try to envision it in game play and i do see things fitting together like pieces of the puzzle. especially the strategy and the idea behind it. i know if i played defense, i will WANT people to attack me and going to bed for 8 hours doesn't seem as bad