Hello,

I just spent the day completing three 1v1 (opponents and maps generated randomly) games to test out the new Entrenchment expansion 2.5 beta, and I thought I'd post some comments while the games were still fresh in my mind.  First off, some general impressions:

1) I just like to say that I had FUN playing these games.  I enjoyed vanilla SINS greatly, and Entrenchment really improves on a good thing.

2) I don't know if, with the added defensive technologies, I'm just noticing them more, but the randomly generated maps seem to have more decisive choke points.  In all three games - if I was fast enough - I could cut off my opponent from 2/3s of the map using two strategically placed starbases.

3) The TEC (on Hard AI, anyway) seems to take along time to develop new ship types.  In my first two games, up until the midpoint, the entirety of the opposing fleet consisted of one or two cap ships (almost always a Sova and/or Marza) and 30+ Cobalts.

Game 1 - Me (TEC) vs Hard AI (TEC)

I love the TEC, so this game was the most fun for me.  Starbases were used by both myself and the AI to a large degree, and the AI seemed to do very well surrounding them with support structures (repair centres, gauss turrents, etc...).  The AI used mines to a much larger degree than myself (my starbases and tactical structures seemed to do well enough on their own), and it took a few tries before I learned how to deal with large minefields successfully.  The anti-structure units also saw heavy play, and seemed balanced enough to me.

Game 2 - Me (Advent) vs Hard AI (TEC)

The tactics used by the AI were very similar to what the TEC used in Game 1 but, even though I had two massive starbases cutting him off from the majority of the map, the AI never built a single Orgov to deal with them.  This was also the most difficult game for me (but I'm a terrible Advent player), with the TEC delivering several sharp defeats to me as I attempted to invade his home systems.  Part of the difficulty was with the Advent anti-structure ship (Adjudicator?).  Following it's nerf, it now takes even a dozen of them a long time to take down a fully upgraded starbase (much more so than with the TEC's Orgov).  I know the theory is to balance it out by allowing it to target multiple structures at once, but sometimes - like say when you take your smaller fleet in around behind a TEC armada - you need to destroy the base fast so you don't get caught between two behemoths.  Most of the time the ability to target multiple structures just wasn't tactically relevent.

Game 3 - Me (Vasari) vs Hard AI (Vasari)

This was the fastest game for me, mostly because the map was skewed heavily in my favour.  This was my first time playing as the Vasari at all since the beta came out.  I was happy that they could build starbases so quickly and cheaply (one fewer military lab required, and no need to build a seperate cruiser).  Also, while the starbase's ability to move never ended up being tactically significant on my end (I was always on the attack), the fact that the AI's base was slowly bearing down on me lent an increased sense of urgency to massed fleet battles that wasn't present during my fights against the TEC and their stationary bases.  Oddly enough, while the TEC AI laid down mines with abandon, the Vasari never built their minelaying ship until the very end of the game.  I researched it, but never built one.  Based on some of the posts regarding Vasari mines, that may have been a mistake on my part.  Also, it seemed very strange not to see a Vasari anti-structure ship.  I never seemed to need one though, as my Evacuator's Nano-Bombs and the Desolator's Disintigration Beam really did a number on any starbases that got close, fully upgraded or otherwise.  By the way, does the Desolator's Assault Specialization ability apply against starbases?

All in all, I really enjoyed my time playing these games.  I have recordings of most of Games 1 and 3, which I'll be putting up soon.