Sins of a Solar Empire : Real-Time Strategy. Unrivalled Scale.
© 2003-2013 Ironclad Games Corporation Vancouver, BC. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2013 Stardock Entertainment

Diplomacy 1.31 Replays

By on July 29, 2011 7:25:26 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

RiddleKing

Join Date 04/2006
+31

Please post any multiplayer games for diplomacy 1.31?

9 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 6, 2011 11:53:39 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DJIVH0NU

It's a 4v5 but its one of the better 1.31 replays I have.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 6, 2011 12:35:52 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Thanks for posting it.  I'll link to this thread at the Steam page.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 6, 2011 10:42:51 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting master1a,
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DJIVH0NU

It's a 4v5 but its one of the better 1.31 replays I have.

I looked at the replay. I'm still trying to get multiplayer. LRF spam was quite a common tactic, yet I didn't see ANYONE countering with heavy cruisers, which are more effective against enemy LRF. (and if anyone was to spam HCs, it would take a significant amount of time for their enemy to research carriers and build bombers to counter - but this tactic wasn't used at all, from what I saw!)

Could anyone more experienced with multiplayer explain the thought process behind this? Sure, researching heavy cruisers in the first place would take filling other slots with military labs and using resources... but not even those with the income and slots to spare (like Auqia) did this.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 6, 2011 11:56:54 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Here's an epic 1v1 I just finished.  I played against a guy who normally just plays AI but was surprisingly decent.  I had a boned start relative to his start, which made the game very challenging and interesting, and thus replay worthy.  I played as the Mean Bean Machine.  This is a n Entrenchment v1.051 replay.

http://www.gamefront.com/files/20644895/Epic+1v1+boned+start+for+winner+%28Entv1-051%29.record

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 9, 2011 1:25:33 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 9, 2011 9:15:49 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 24, 2011 6:22:55 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Problem is you can't just say "Oh you didnt counter with HC" when moving from tier 2 to tier 5 involves substantial investment, plus u need time to build up critical mass of 10 or so HCs.  In most cases where both sides are spamming their entire income in ships, throwing that investment down would mean your frontline would collapse.  More prudent course of action usually is to play holding action, maitain your front by spamming flak, and hope an ally will bail you out.  If you let your frontline collapse while you are getting HC, you can soon find yourself losing the labs you need to keep HCs rolling out, and at this point its gg regardless.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 26, 2011 9:02:58 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Astax,
Problem is you can't just say "Oh you didnt counter with HC" when moving from tier 2 to tier 5 involves substantial investment, plus u need time to build up critical mass of 10 or so HCs.  In most cases where both sides are spamming their entire income in ships, throwing that investment down would mean your frontline would collapse.  More prudent course of action usually is to play holding action, maitain your front by spamming flak, and hope an ally will bail you out.  If you let your frontline collapse while you are getting HC, you can soon find yourself losing the labs you need to keep HCs rolling out, and at this point its gg regardless.

 

So, speaking as someone who's played a fair amount of sins but hasn't really gotten into multiplayer, would you say starbases are not effective at slowing the enemy while you obtain HCs when you have a chokepoint world?  Also, how effective are fighters against LRFs now?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 26, 2011 9:32:44 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Tohron,
So, speaking as someone who's played a fair amount of sins but hasn't really gotten into multiplayer, would you say starbases are not effective at slowing the enemy while you obtain HCs when you have a chokepoint world?  Also, how effective are fighters against LRFs now?

Starbases are useful for protecting your fleet and structures, but not for stopping the enemy from advancing and/or attacking your planet if they really want to. Unlike the AI, only very stupid humans would charge headfirst into a starbase. A starbase is also a pretty big investment - getting one up is quite costly, almost as much as building military structures and researching HCs I think. It'd probably be better to invest in a fleet, early-mid game at least... except if you're Vasari, in which case having a (moving) SB could be somewhat more useful.

While fighers can do a good amount of damage against enemy LRF, especially if the fighters hold position, they're also ridiculously easy to counter with flak, which completely melts fighters. If you're playing a competitive MP game and haven't had spare resources to get HCs going, it's definitely better to counter enemy LRF with your own flak or LRF.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108436  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000187   Page Render Time: