General Warfare Strategy
from 
Sins Forums
Sins Forums
I see a great number of posts pertaining to the balance of this game. Most of them are gripes, insisting that the mass production or "spamming" or certain types of ships is a guaranteed victory. What I would submit is that it's the typical style of gameplay at fault here, and not so much the strengths and/or weaknesses of the units of the game.
I've played approximately 10 games to completion (or at least to the point where everyone quits) and I've noticed a repeating pattern. To generalize, players are stockpiling units as a one to two hour lead-in to the final "coup de gras" battle. Once that battle is over, the losers usually resign. I see this not only as poor strategy, but also a monumental wasting of time. Furthermore, the player who loses the battle will often retaliate by explaining how over-powered or unbalanced the winners units are and so on.
That is why these forums have seen so many of these claims and counterclaims. The problem with said claims, however, is that there is a near complete lack of evidence to support it. Even the player who has spent night and day with this game so far has most likely only brought his strategy to face with enemies a handful of times due to the eventual nature of combat in this game. Another dimension of this problem is apparently a number of individuals have earnestly, yet mistakenly, assured themselves that using only one type of unit is the key to success.
This game was not only designed and balanced by professionals, it also underwent extensive testing. The problem is not an unbalanced game, it is unbalanced gameplay. Without turning this post into a research paper, I'll merely say that I've attended a number of lectures and sessions on game theory, design, and balance. One of the most common themes, particularly in the multiplayer balancing arena, is what I call "community acquired nerfing." It applies to many genres of games, but namely strategy, action, and role-playing. Essentially, the majority of online players begin implementing a tactic that is effective. There are other, equally powerful tactics available, including powerful counter-tactics. Those other tactics are being ignored, however, in the face of the tried and true existing methods. A bomb then explodes in community forums. People whine and complain until finally the developers obliterate the tactic with a balance-changing patch. Amazingly, this cycle repeats and often the changes made previously will be undone, with the final version of the game resembling something quite similar in balance to the original product. This problem is exacerbated in Sins because of the long lead-in nature of combat; players are taking so much time to build one fleet that little attention is being paid to alternative styles of warfare.
Aside from culture and economy, let's stir up some opinion on combat strategy. Both general campaign strategy (fleet composition, offensive/defensive tactics) and specific battle strategy (targeting, micro-management).
There is likely a better way to conduct a campaign than to build one fleet and slam it against the walls of the opponent's proverbial castle. I have, for example, tried invading my opponent on multiple fronts early on. This forces them to split their juggernaut fleet and divert their attention to many areas, something that I have sometimes proven better at doing myself, obviously. This leads into the specific combat strategy. Since I was all over the map, my enemy didn't have time to micromanage his ships and target my capitals. Speaking of that, has anyone had luck doing anything but trying to blow up only capitals in a large scale engagement?
What about mixing your main offensive with economical raids? It doesn't seem so hard to slip through enemy defenses with a large enough force. How about LRM frigates targeting trade ports, refineries, and research stations in the softer parts of an opponent's empire? Is it pertinent to take the feet out from underneath someone as an alternative to beating them toe-to-toe?
What the community ought to do, (I don't have the time for this), is get together and build a directory of replays that feature something other than "look at all my ships." Just food for thought, tell me what you think.
I've played approximately 10 games to completion (or at least to the point where everyone quits) and I've noticed a repeating pattern. To generalize, players are stockpiling units as a one to two hour lead-in to the final "coup de gras" battle. Once that battle is over, the losers usually resign. I see this not only as poor strategy, but also a monumental wasting of time. Furthermore, the player who loses the battle will often retaliate by explaining how over-powered or unbalanced the winners units are and so on.
That is why these forums have seen so many of these claims and counterclaims. The problem with said claims, however, is that there is a near complete lack of evidence to support it. Even the player who has spent night and day with this game so far has most likely only brought his strategy to face with enemies a handful of times due to the eventual nature of combat in this game. Another dimension of this problem is apparently a number of individuals have earnestly, yet mistakenly, assured themselves that using only one type of unit is the key to success.
This game was not only designed and balanced by professionals, it also underwent extensive testing. The problem is not an unbalanced game, it is unbalanced gameplay. Without turning this post into a research paper, I'll merely say that I've attended a number of lectures and sessions on game theory, design, and balance. One of the most common themes, particularly in the multiplayer balancing arena, is what I call "community acquired nerfing." It applies to many genres of games, but namely strategy, action, and role-playing. Essentially, the majority of online players begin implementing a tactic that is effective. There are other, equally powerful tactics available, including powerful counter-tactics. Those other tactics are being ignored, however, in the face of the tried and true existing methods. A bomb then explodes in community forums. People whine and complain until finally the developers obliterate the tactic with a balance-changing patch. Amazingly, this cycle repeats and often the changes made previously will be undone, with the final version of the game resembling something quite similar in balance to the original product. This problem is exacerbated in Sins because of the long lead-in nature of combat; players are taking so much time to build one fleet that little attention is being paid to alternative styles of warfare.
Aside from culture and economy, let's stir up some opinion on combat strategy. Both general campaign strategy (fleet composition, offensive/defensive tactics) and specific battle strategy (targeting, micro-management).
There is likely a better way to conduct a campaign than to build one fleet and slam it against the walls of the opponent's proverbial castle. I have, for example, tried invading my opponent on multiple fronts early on. This forces them to split their juggernaut fleet and divert their attention to many areas, something that I have sometimes proven better at doing myself, obviously. This leads into the specific combat strategy. Since I was all over the map, my enemy didn't have time to micromanage his ships and target my capitals. Speaking of that, has anyone had luck doing anything but trying to blow up only capitals in a large scale engagement?
What about mixing your main offensive with economical raids? It doesn't seem so hard to slip through enemy defenses with a large enough force. How about LRM frigates targeting trade ports, refineries, and research stations in the softer parts of an opponent's empire? Is it pertinent to take the feet out from underneath someone as an alternative to beating them toe-to-toe?
What the community ought to do, (I don't have the time for this), is get together and build a directory of replays that feature something other than "look at all my ships." Just food for thought, tell me what you think.
