Even more questions...

1. Expand as quickly and efficiently as you can.

2. It depends on the size of your empire.

3. You want about one flak to an enemy squad of fighters.  You need more against bombers though..

4. I tend to expand linearly.

5. Its good if you have the money and you have a compact empire as it boost income.

6. In many cases, people do not bother to tech up as rushing can be done easily with LFs and scouts.

7. Some people have been able to take 9, though doing so depends on having a star as a buffer with four starbases.

1)
No, comp stomping is nothing like playing online.  Like all cheating AI's, the key is just to survive the early game until you get your footing.  Once a cheating AI loses its momentum, it's finished and your victory is just a matter of time.  The AI is unfortunately very stupid, falling into obvious pitfalls. A human player will fight in a proactive manner and if he falls into an obvious trap, he's unlikely to make the same mistake twice.


2)
Nope; trade ports are overrated. Even as TEC you often go completely without them.  Besides, you wouldn't build a "single" trade port.  You either build a complete network (at least 4 ports on 4 different planets all in a row) or you don't bother at all.

The key, money-wise, is to be more frugal in your spending. Heavies probably weren't the right unit choice in your situation, but carriers and hoshikos would be very useful. Although expensive, hoshikos will keep your units alive longer, meaning you have to replace them less often, and in the long-run this can actually save you more money than trade ports all while giving you a distinct in-battle advantage.


3)
All you need to do to keep flaks being effective is to keep them in position.  They will often chase strike craft away from your fleet, and you will need to keep your fleet together to some extent.

In terms of beating strike craft, it's typically said that you want one flak per squad of fighters.  My bet is that you were trying to get away with one flak per carrier, which is really half the amount you need to properly suppress strike craft.  Bombers are another story; flaks can beat them, but you need 2 or 3 per squad, which starts getting excessive.  If there are large numbers of bombers, you need fighters.

If you only need a couple carriers, like two or three, it's actually more cost-effective to get a carrier-class capital ship rather than researching carrier cruisers and then building those. 


4)
Totally depends on the map layout.  If you can, then yes, you should expand in two directions.  Other times you want to bee-line to the opponent and then go all-out military.


5)
Culture is a nasty little thing to decide when to use it.  It does boost loyalty in friendly systems, which means more income from those systems.  It's also a threat to your enemy that can really only be countered (in the long-term) with culture of their own.  I wouldn't say it's late game, but culture is something that isn't a must-have unless your opponent decides to get it.


6)
Six fleet upgrades?  How could you possibly have that and not heavies?  Six fleet upgrades requires six military or civic labs.  If you built six civic labs, that's your problem right there.  If you built six military labs, you had the prerequisites for heavies.

I rarely go as high as six fleet upgrades.  More common is that I will take casualties in my successive battles and have to spend money replacing those units.  Typically people who fleet up too much will be unable to replace their numbers and ultimately will lose, either because they have to sacrifice tech level (as you did) or because they cannot sustain those high numbers.

That said, I have played low-tech games before.  Not too long ago I stuck with 2-lab as Vasari for well over an hour before finally adding a third and fourth lab for overseers, carriers, and minelayers. Instead of high-tech units I compensated by getting some nice capital ships and constantly pressuring my opponent.


7)
I usually don't take on large teams of unfair AI's.  Too much time.  Instead, I speed-run against smaller teams.  I had a nice relaxing game last night against one unfair (random small map) which took exactly one hour to complete.

Then it must have been 5 fleet upgrades. 1 cap, and spammed LRM's I promise ya There were some siege frigs though. I had 3 Civ labs and 2 Military. I thought it worked by having a total of 5 labs? Like I said... I spammed, and I mean spammed,  LRM's and could always replace and then continue to fill my fleet as fast as they killed em.

I had flak based off my fleet. 3 LRM, 1 Flak. So I guess I could've scouted more and then made more or less flak, but I  always seemed to be short of flak, always...

Thanks for the info guys. I guess I'll go ahead and get the upgrade and try some decent sized online fights. I still can't imagine taking 9 unfairs in locked teams. I might could see three... That sorta worries me. Maybe entrenchment really adds some amazing defensive structures.

Thanks again, peace.

Actually, I never knew it worked like that.  I confirmed it just now, so you're right.  Anyways, the fact that I always have more military labs than my fleet research level should probably answer your question.

I'd have pushed for 3 military labs if only for hoshikos in your case, but I doubt I'd have gone further.  As I said, I don't think heavies were the right unit in your situation.  From the sounds of it, your enemy's fleet was more carrier and siege frigate (typical of the AI), and it makes more sense to make a balance of flaks, cobalts, and LRM's supported by hoshikos and capital ships. 

Flak is one of the toughest units in the game.  It's only countered by light frigates, which get slaughtered by your LRM's.  If flaks alone aren't doing the job, a good alternative is to go for the carriers.  Your LRM's or cobalts both make excellent unit choices for doing so.

It's called a "starbase".  The problem isn't that it's overpowering, it's that the AI just doesn't know how to deal with it. 

As they say in the overseas country I am currently living in, MP is "same same but different."  Multiplayer is completely dominated by rushing.  Rush rush rush rush rush.  It's all anyone will do.  I've tried playing on larger maps just to discourage it - it's STILL all anyone will do.

Expect 2 things online MP:  1) rush, rush, rush 2) spam, spam, spam.

Put them on hold position.  Actually, that's generally a good idea for your entire fleet.

Of course.

Not sure what your question is.  If you are asking whether there is spam in this game, the answer is yes, in both SP and MP.  Actually, you really don't need to do anything exotic in terms of unit selection to beat the AI.  Just spam hordes of your favorite unit - light frigs, lrf, whatever.  Hell, Cykur beat unfair AIs by spamming only scouts, and posted replays.  He also beat something like 8 unfair AIs all at once, all allied against him.

See above.

Yes get Entrenchment.  Actually it adds a lot more than just starbases.  There are other defensive enhancements: there is 1 additional cruiser for each race, there are explosive mines, there are additional "weapons banks" for capships, there are turret and hanger upgrades, etc.

Oh, c'mon.  Most people do build somewhat balanced armies.  Illum spammers, which will be dealt with next patch, are the only real exception.  I see lots of variation in fleet and strategy.

And yes, people will try to attack as early as possible.  The best defense is a good offense, it's that simple.  Even if your homeworld isn't a viable target, it's very likely that players will be eying up strategic choke points and rushing to take them as early as possible.  Early battle is just a reality in every RTS game.

I agree with Darvin on this one, Im seeing more balanced fleets than before. And as far as rushing goes. I define "rushing" differently than Agent does. Where as I believe he defines it as any attack in the first 15 minutes, I take rushing as a player skipping over several planets to attack an opponents HW, which is common in cramped maps but isnt entirely the norm. However In MP the rate at which people expand is much faster than in SP, so early game battles over planets and choke points happen frequently, but thats inevitable due to the fact that multi-star games are rare in MP which is why I don't consider it "rushing".

I guess I just define it as heading directly towards the nearest opponent as soon as the game starts.  There are several forms of this.  Some people prefer to conquer a few planets along the way.  This is a "lesser rush."  Some people prefer to skip planets and just head straight for the guy.  This is a "greater rush."

This is the only thing you will ever see online MP.  Like I said, I tried playing on bigger maps (did one last night in fact).  I'll be damned if my vasari opponent still didn't just spam 2 skirantras and head straight for my homeworld all the way across the map, with a stream of skirmishers being pumped behind.  I asked myself what this guy would have done if I had selected a multistar map.  The answer I concocted was that he would simply drop labs, research starjump tech, and just rush my home planet anyway.

In the face of the ubiquitous rush, I've heavily experimented (knowing I would lose in the process) with different non-rush strategies, in an attempt to convince myself that this is an actual strategy game and can be played as such.  For instance, I tried just culturing the entire map while my enemy rushed me.  I even went Advent, and got starbases with evangelization nodes, and spammed them at stragtegic locations, including at the star, and upgraded the evangelization nodes to the max. While he attacked my homeworld, I just relocated it since I had mothership on colony detail.  Result - abject failure.

I've experimented with a plethora of other approaches as well.  My conclusion is that this is not a strategy game because there is only 1 viable strat - rush.  Furthermore, tactics dominates strategy in this game anyway.

This is a rush-style RTT game.  But against the AI it is possible to pretend that it is an RTS, and play it that way.

Taking a neutral planet is A LOT easier than taking an enemy-controlled one.  It doesn't make sense to expand towards neutral territory; these planets will remain neutral for a long time and I can always come back to them later.  The planets between me and my enemy?  If I don't take them, he will, and then I have to fight quite seriously to take them.  Of course it makes sense to take the contested resources first, and then go for the stuff that's out of your enemy's reach later.

I disagree with you regarding that tactics are null.  You can easily fight the enemy to a standstill and start using more subtle approaches like culture push, but honestly if you're seriously outgunned or you simply let your opponent claim all the good strategic points uncontested, what do you expect will happen?

This is funny, because I thought you were then going to say "therefore why take any enemy-controlled one when you could take the easier one?"  But you didn't, you said the opposite.  To me it makes more sense to take the easier ones first (all other things being equal) because then you are ahead.  If you spend a larger amount of time taking an enemy planet, then you are behind in the taking of planets.

A funny example (to me, anyway).  Yesterday I played MP and had Tyr on my flank, a couple jumps away.   There were lots of easy planets he could have taken.  But he went straight for my homeworld and spent I don't know how long bombing it down.  I didn't fight him, I just let him have it, while I colonized a trail of planets up to the middle and beyond.

After taking my HW, instead of then going for other easy planets, he just followed my trail, bombing all the planets I took in sucession.  So then I purposeully would go into a heavily contested terran or desert, just take out the siege frigs, colonize, then leave.  That way he also had to fight the neutrals there, in addition to bombing my planet.  It still didn't deter him, LOL, he just went right ahead following my trail of colonized planets, fighting the neutrals I left for him (multiple kodiacs).

No, tactics dominate.  Strategy is largely null.

You're missing my point.

The planets in the back will always be neutral, the enemy has no realistic capability of taking them.  They will be easy to acquire whether you take them now or later.  However, the planets in the middle of the map can be taken by the enemy.  Taking them early, before your enemy can do so, is the only way to get them while they are still easy to acquire. 

This is why, even if you do not intend to attack your opponent's planets, it is a good idea to expand towards your enemy.  If you do not, he will expand towards you and the planets that you might have been able to take as easy neutrals are now owned by an enemy player.

Not really, for two reasons.  First, he lost a planet while you gained one, so it's effectively a two-planet swing.  Secondly, that planet likely had strategic value (why else would you have attacked it?) which will put your opponent in a difficult position.  Finally, he loses any investments he made on that planet (infrastructure, structures).

As for your story about Tyr... frankly, once you were defeated he was free to eco up, so chances are he was playing as a pocket player while pursuing you there.  I don't know the layout of your map, but from the sounds of it you were a suicide (or pseudo-suicide) and there wasn't another player immediately exposed by your defeat, which means Tyr probably didn't have any immediate targets to hit after you.  I've seen (and been victim of) Tyr's relentless rushes.  He executes them with perfect precision, and pretty much knows he can get away with acting overly aggressive. 

I personally tend to be more passive-aggressive... Tyr just slaughters you with a single quick and decisive attack...

Agree. In most of the 2v2s and 1v1s I've played recently, fights occur more over strategic positions rather than straight forward HW to HW. It allows much more time to construct a decent trade system as more planets are taken before and around those positions. In these games economy plays a much more important role.

I wasn't defeated.

No offense meant to Tyr in the slightest, but I wasn't impressed.  It was just standard fare as far as I'm concerned.  It wasn't any more or less impressive or relentless than the bazzillion other rushes I've seen.  I knew it was coming, because for one reason I was playing MP online, LOL.  For another reason, my scout uncovered his hw before his uncovered mine, and I saw that it was Tyr, which means "rush" all the more.  Finally, when his scout hit my homeworld, it went straight for my contructor and started shooting it.  That didn't bother me whatsoever, because I didn't intend on building anything with it, but point being, that was 3rd indicator "rush" was coming.  I simply built 1 civ lab on the asteroid I conquered, researched scrapping technology (vasari), then demolished all structures when he rolled into my planet, plus I demolished the civ lab at the roid.

The first thing he did when he rolled in was starbase (vasari).  I thought that was funny because he didn't need to - I wasn't going to oppose him in the slightest degree.  So that was a waste of funds on his part.  The poor starbase never even had a chance to shoot at anything since I scrapped everything the second he rolled in.  Looked pretty though, I guess.

This is an example of an attempt at a "strategic counter" to a rush.  Let him take what he wants, and just go about your game somewhere else.  The problem I'm pointing out is, the game provides for few, if any, such strategic counters.  Pretty much the only thing you can do is fight fire with fire.

EDIT:

LOL.  People generally attack planets for the same reason mountain climbers climb mountains - "because they're there."

The reasons I attacked the planets I attacked in the game I just mentioned had nothing to do with their strategic value.  One simply needs planets for resources, logistics/tactical slots, etc.  When leaving my homeworld and colonizing up the middle, I simply asked myself which planets could I colonize that 1) weren't ice/volc/dead roids, 2) were fastest to get to, 3) had the least resistance, and 4) were in the path or near other planets which met the same criteria.  Later when Tyr decided to follow my trail of breadcrumbs, I changed 3 above to 3) had the MOST resistance, so that I could leave that resistance for him to fight, i.e. this meant the planet should have had lesser value to him.  It made no difference.

Neither Tyr nor I attacked planets because of any strategic value, but with Tyr this was even less so because HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO NOT ATTACK PLANETS WITH STRATEGIC VALUE (i.e. he went out of his way to ONLY attack my planets, even after I had purposefully switched to attacking less desirable over more desirable planets, LOL).

The bottom line is, a rusher doesn't attack your planets because they have "strategic value."  A rusher attacks your planets because that's what a rusher does.  A rusher will attack your planets over other planets even if other nearby planets are easier to take, offer higher strategic value, etc.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree.  The econ techs are just not substantial enough.  The game would be much more strategic if: economic, cultural, artifact and planet upgrades were cheaper and/or more significant.  Not to mention if chokepoints really worked, and all that you could do with map layout.

You lost your homeworld.  I'm aware you weren't knocked out of the game, but you had still been defeated by your opponent.  Your "breadcrumb" trail of planets wasn't a recovery so much as a distraction for Tyr.

Quite frankly I think it was a fair presumption on his part to assume his opponent wouldn't roll over for him.  Once he realized you weren't putting up a fight, every penny he has can go towards colonization and eco.  I've been victim of Tyr's starbase/skirantra rush before.  He executes it quite well and you've gotta be ready for it before he gets to your homeworld.

As far as Tyr goes, I repeat: he knows he can get away with being overly aggressive.  He sees an opportunity for a quick-kill and he goes for it.  One of these days, I hope to make that blow up in his face (in which case he'll suddenly be very vulnerable) but until then he knows how to make a kill stick.

Not to mention you're talking about Tyr, who only a very few people can beat, and not because he has 1 strategy that clobbers everyone. He's among the best at this game because he knows exactly how to take advantage of your weaknesses.

Hey guys I thought of another question. I asked earlier if the diplomacy screen helps any. I don't think I explained it well enough.

Does the ingame screen that ranks players based on Econ - Culture - Miltary help much?
Does culture show who has the most?
Does military show who has used the most ship slots?
Do people consider it as they attack/defend?

That kinda stuff...

These are helpful, and can tell you whether the enemy is overall doing better than you in one of these aspects, but it doesn't tell you how much better he's doing than you.

"Colonization" refers to how many planets you own.  Typically you should be scouting to know this anyways.

"Research" is largely a useless measurement, counting how many technologies each player has researched.  Of course, someone could have fewer but higher-level technologies, so it counts for virtually nothing.

"Culture" refers to what % of the map's phase lanes are covered in your colour.  This isn't very useful since you should have an idea based on your scouting.

"Fleet" refers to how big your fleet is; this one IS useful, since you can tell if you've surpassed or fallen behind an enemy in terms of fleet size.  This is strictly the size of the fleet, not quality of the units.

"Capital Ships" refers to not only how many capital ships you have, but what levels they are.  Chances are you'll know what caps he has in your battles, so this isn't particularly worthwhile intel.

"Defense" can be useful, particularly for telling when your opponent built a starbase, but in general scouting is a better way to figure out what he has.

The three economic indications, however, are invaluable.  These will tell you whether you're ahead or behind for income.  You won't know by how much you're ahead or behind, but it's very useful to know so you have an idea of where you stand.  Even if you've been ahead or behind for the long-run, I often find in the end-game stats that the players were closer than they thought, so don't put TOO much weight in this.

Yes, yes, and no.  People tend to trust their actual intel (scouts and such) more than these indicators.

Those indicators consider entire empires anyway, not just an isolated section. Things like defenses are not normally distributed evenly across one's empire.

Say you had only one planet to defend. Even if you completely maxed out the possible defenses on that gravity well, you probably would not end up as number 1 in defense as quantity is the dominating, if not sole factor in the calculation of those indicators (I've had games where the AI spammed 12+ capitals and took number 1 for capital ships even though I had 6 capitals all level 10).

Lost hw does not equal defeated.  I could refer you to one of my games a few weeks ago.  I rushed and took out Ferdie's hw, who started next to me.  At the end of the game, he had over twice as many planets as anyone else, and over 3 or 4 times the econ.

I was not defeated, and furthermore my team won.  Having said that, yes I agree that all too often "lost hw equals defeat."  I believe that the homeworld is too significant in this game.  The loss of the hw is too hard to recover from.  This tilts the game even more towards "rush rush rush" and tends to make any other strat nonviable.  Ferdie and me were major exceptions to the rule, and were only able to recover because there were lots of other players in the game, the mapsize was big, etc.

So you believe that an attempt at a strategic counter, and an attempt to play the game in not the exact same way as everyone else always does, is "rolling over for someone?"  I guess you agree then that the only way to play this game is to rush.

I think you can add to this list the fact that the hw is overly-significant relative to everything else in the game.  There has to be a way to play the game besides "rush hw/defend hw," otherwise we aren't talking about very much strategy in this "strategy game."

I had severe problems with the game when it first released.  There were NO CHOKEPOINTS.  In and of itself, I wouldn't have cared, except the game also had 1) phase lanes, and 2) a phase jump inhibitor that didn't work because the devs nerfed it into oblivion coming out of beta!  So I put the game down for close to a year, and came back only when I found out the PJI had been buffed (still not to my satisfaction, but it was all I was going to get).

With PJIs only, there was the ability to create an extremely soft "choke" (cough).   With starbases and mines backing up the PJI (which is gonna cost you), there is the ability to create a medium choke I guess.  Actually, even that isn't true in most cases, and would require several layers of starbases and PJIs.

I have always preferred hard chokes, as you allude to.  I think they started removing strategy from the game the moment it shipped, starting with map strategy (PJI debacle).

In my limited multiplayer experience(ive played less than 10 games, and two of the were lan games against my best friend) id have to say that there are almost no similarities between sp and mp. it the same game but it requires two different play styles. I tend to be a passive player, but i find in mp i have to be far more agressive just to be competitive. also, toasters just don't have the adaptivity that humans have, and they definitly dont rush you in the first five minutes.(i had this one guy take me out in the first 3 minutes of the game, mainly because i wasn't expecting a rush that soon). The computer also doesn't use it's ability as effectively. stomping toasters is easy, beating humans in mp is a whole different animal