Off topic, but there are plenty of people on these forums who simply won't read, even if you explain things as s l o w l y as possible...
I suppose it's just a necessary evil

I haven't run into this myself yet, but I have only played one game since beta (no time at the mo)

However, the whole of human technology has been a response to a need, and the whole of defensive technology has been as a counter to offensive technology - better armour stops arrows.

Take for example nuclear missiles - when these first emerged they were a serious threat, but within 30 years we now have a viable defence plan in the form of tracked ground-to-air missiles.

To propose that an advanced race who have had seige frigates for possibly 10,000 years (wiping out the Vasari?) without having developed an effective defence against them is simply ridiculous.

The best way to deal with this (in my opinion) would be to reduce the HP and also reduce the cost accordingly (reduce HP 40%, reduce cost 40%) It may have already been said, but after a while of reading posts for the sole purpose of insulting each other, I gave up reading.

Considering the later dev post was FAR more detailed and broken down to NUMBERS? Yes, I think so too.

Thanks for agreeing.

And all the later post did was give reasons not to use that strategy, with no explanation of why the AI does use it, over and over and over and over again. Not just against players, but against each other as well.

FWIW, I liked the idea about letting anti-fighter frigates shoot down siege missiles. It may help balance things a bit, and it would definitely have a "cool" factor.

I think part of the debate is whether or not fixed defenses should be able to hold off a moderately-sized fleet. Looking at the game design, the answer seems to be "no".

Actually, I was talking about the logic of your post, but meh. My sarcasm clearly failed.

Epic fail, sir.

Dont know having a blast and I know what the OP is talking about, I won't yet play online because I need a full grasp of the game before I do. However this issue is as the dev said , pretty easy to over come with a good def. You say you had allot but I have yet to have this spam of bombers take out my planet after my first two lessons learned.

I have learned to expand to one area and build build build baby, ya the AI gets more land, but I send out small things to piss it off and pirates are my best friends for keeping the AI in check.

So far balance is very good in my eyes, this issue among others I seen getting posted now are all tatics my friends all can be overcome with an understanding of what you need to do.

Good that you agree.

I'm a new poster, who just bought the game and played 2 games so far, and I've had no experience with any stardock games, but a big rts player.

I've had some of the same problems as most of you, and there's a lot of suggestions of how to fix it, all of which would probably work one way or another.

I think the biggest problem people are having with the siege rush is that there's no counter other than "get the other guy first." Once the attack has begun its really hard to stop. So why is the "get the other guy first" strategy the only one that should work? If I spend a lot of time developing a planet and building defenses around it, its disheartening to see a group of ships ignore my defenses and still deal a crippling blow to my empire.

Why build defensive structures when they are all going to be ignored and the thing I'm defending is so easily destroyed?

Planet HP is so low compared to ship HP its silly to think of them as anything bigger than frigates. Capital ships have about the same HP as a planet, and planets don't get the same armor and shields as a starting out capital ship. Taking planets should require a siege, hence the siege ships. As is now, demolishing a planet's population is more like a quick carpet bomb and move on.

Trying to meet the enemy fleet and halting them is the most depressing defense strategy I've ever used. You charge ahead to meet your foe, but if the jump is long enough that he can cross the gravity well and jump past you, then all you can do is wait. Even if you manage to meet him in the gravity well, he moves straight on. Sure he's a bit of a sitting duck while he waits to jump again but your ships are busy doing ridiculous spin moves while he moves on as if he'd never met you. Sure you destroyed a few of his ships, but you didn't HALT him in his tracks.

A large number of the complaints is that they've got way too much life. That's one way of fixing this problem. Its true siege weapons usually are easy to destroy, but that's also a play style we've become very accustomed too. Perhaps dropping their movement speed, or an increased likelyhood of hitting while they're shooting.

Perhaps another way is to increase the planet HP. I mention again that they require a lot of technology to have the sort of health of a capital ship. Why are surface structures easier to destroy than other space ships? Are our space age bunker busters so much more effective than today's standards? And unless they're using some ridiculous nukes on these planets, they're definantly not covering the whole planet in so little time.

Then there's the defensive structures in the system. With a limit on how many you can build, and their inability to move they should have a lot more going for them than a normal ship's stats. I haven't analyzed this solution, but it seems like other than being no-tech required to build they don't seem any better than the long range frigates.

I'm gonna end this with agreeing with the people who don't think is a bug or exploit. Its just as fair if you do it or they do it cause everyone's playing with the same rules. That being said, the rules definantly seem to be favoring one or two strategies right now, and that seems a little boring for the varied playstyle everyone wishes it had right now. I trust we'll see some improvements one way or another in the next couple of months.

*practices ritualistic hypocrisy*

this would only exacerbate the problem, the current thing that is going for any person FACING a frig spammer is that 20 frigs > 55 light frigs, thats an INSANE trade off. if you use siege frigs KEEP THEM TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, unless you can GARUNTEE that your enemy wont come after you when you siege their planet and/or you can fend them off with a significantly lower unit cap. (230 units, thats over 1/10 of the MAX in the game!)

Ok, I get it. It's a stupid tactic to use against experienced players. But players aren't the ones using it, the EASY AI is. The Easy AI should be there to let new players learn the basics of the game, not to pound them into the dust before they figure things out.

ok fine, I can accept that line of reasoning.

what I cant accept is the broad demands people are making based on limited game exposure. calling for an immediate and broad spectrum nerf (especially one that would only exacerbate the problem, what now when you have to deal with 28 siege frigs instead of 20!?!?!)

people dont have the experience yet to be making these judgements.

Schod, remember that forum posting is like a chronic disease. It just won't go away.
So don't apologize about hipocrisy - blame it on the Evil Alien Entity that is the forum. We'll understand

can I apologize for the evil alien entity forum (damn you jim, I didnt program you to be this evil!) and then blame the hypocrisy?

good point. i think they should be weakened so they are easy to kill and IF the cost is lowered, that its not lowered too much. your frigate fleet would be great for colony raiding but if you don't scout, you might find your fleet being decimated by a well defended enemy planet.

...ok, but attribute the hypocrisy to the forum's evil alien entity-ness. That way, you're totally absolved!

I did lose a game of Sins to a chicken...it was sad.

.deleted.

oh well, some of us are forever stuck as cute rodents

deal!

lets just wait a *little* while, because right now we're jumping to conclusions.

Except for us Beta players

Anyways, I gotta agree with schod, being siege rushed in a map can be hard to counter, but it just depends on your play style.

For example: if you like to expand REALLY quickly (fast colonization)then you'll spread out too quickly to effectively cover all your planets well. When a huge siege "rush" comes (averaging 20 to 30 frigates) you just spent all your money on planetary stuff and not a fleet, or your fleet will be too far away.

If you tech a lot, you'll have the same issue, not a large enough fleet.

When I play, I am very aggressive. I get a lot of ships, very quickly. I don't tech more than I need to (usually not past tier 3 both trees in an hour to 2 hour game. I expand pretty fast, but I have my fleet size comparable to expansions. when I detect a fleet, rather than finishing what I'm doing, I react as fast as I can to slow the rush down. They have to start at an outer planet anyways, and that will buy me enough time to get my fleet there, especially if they have to destroy the planet twice because of a colonization frigate I have there. by the time they destroy the planet, I have my fleet there and I'm tearing through the enemy's units like a hot knight through butter. After they retreat, I peruse them WHILE colonizing my planet. When I counter, they have no organizable or decent defenses, so I quickly destroy their entire fleet as well as their planets.

I.E. a big fleet wins, a small fleet loses. It also helps to have some reaction time.

Time will tell.

So let me make this clear kyro, you don't actually want epic fleet battles between frigates, cruisers, and capital ships with lasers and missiles dancing across space in a symphony of destruction? Instead, you want a zergling rush ala 1995 where each side spams a crap fleet at the start of the game (the first 10 minutes is certainly the start of a 4x game) and rushes each others capital planet?

If I wanted StarCraft, I'd go buy it. Remember your roots and your fan base, SD is known for its deep gameplay that builds to a crescendo as the game progresses. Where losing systems actually mean something. Not musical chairs.

Did I mention that it's impossible to "lose" with a siege rush against a capital? Try it some time. You nuke the cap, the alligence falls. The alligence falls, the income is paralyzed. When that happens you lose, even if you killed all their siege frigs.

From my understanding, there is problem with this though. How do you know where the enemy fleet is going? They can simply bypass your planets, after they've waited a few moments grant you. When your fleet does arrive, the planet is already destroyed, and the enemy, once it takes considerable damage, flees the scene. The damage caused by the loss of said planet, particularly if it is your capital, is devastating, so it might be hard to launch an effective counter attack. This is what I've grasped from previous arguments.