First of all, let's make sure you're not making the obvious beginner mistake:  are you purchasing planetary population upgrades?

When you first colonize a planet, its income will actually be negative and bleed your treasury.  In order to make the planet profitable, you will need to purchase planetary population upgrades.  Asteroids only require one upgrade, but full-sized planets require two in order to fully remove the penalty.  This is a fairly common mistake, and if you have several unupgraded planets, your income will be greatly reduced.

 

Aside from this, you should try to be as frugal as possible.  Don't buy more planetary upgrades than you need; in most cases, you should buy the bare minimum population upgrades and your extractors.  Avoid tactical defenses like the plague.  If there's still some militia to clean up, building a single turret isn't a bad idea, and if you have some damaged units building a single repair platform is a pretty good idea.  Beyond that, don't waste time and money on defenses.

The same applies to the technology side.  Try to be frugal with tech.  You can grab some of 1st-tier technologies near the start of the game, but anything 2-labs and above should be researched sparingly.  Researching new units/structures and the ability to colonize ice and volcanic planets are the only techs above the 1-lab level you should grab during the first 10 minutes of the game.

Lean heavily on your capital ship, avoid building too many units.  Even on fastest speed with quick-start, you don't have enough cash to colonize everything you want as fast as you want while still maintaining a fleet.  Use your capital ships and very small groups of frigates efficiently, and avoid picking up that first fleet level upgrade until you're ready to build a real fighting force to hammer the enemy.

Beyond that, try to avoid idling.  Time is a precious resource, and making efficient use of it (particularly in the first 15 minutes) is critical.

 

If you want, you can post a replay and I'll critique it for you.  Ensure it starts from the beginning of the game; the first 30 minutes is usually all I need to see to know what's going on.  If you have specific questions or concerns, feel free to ask away.

I am in the same boat as the OP.  I am definitely guilty of the "too much defense spending" thing.

I have lost every game I play, but it is taking longer to lose each time.  I am taking this as a sign of progress.  I have found the information graphs at the end of each game to be very helpful.  (They show me what the other player did that I should have been doing.)

Well I've won a couple of games now, so I'm getting better.  I'm rather unwell at the moment, so keeping track of multiple things at the same time and fasting thinking is rather hard for me at the moment.  I'm beginning to think that something a tad bit slower like Gal Civ 2 would better for me to play.  Having said that I love Sins.  The artwork for the Advent is wonderful, and I am having a really fun game with the Vasari at the moment against an easy AI.

With regards to the tech trees, I'm still learning what they do.  Having said that, I'm being careful not to over build in them too fast (which I was doing before), and to try to pace myself resource wise.

Darvin3, thank you for your offer of a replay. At the moment I only have vanilla Sins (patched to the latest version).  If you could please do a replay in vanilla Sins using the Vasari that would be great .

 

Many thanks,

 

Raven

Thank you Darvin for all your help

First think I look for is how they start off their colonization....

Excellent players will generally pull off a double colonization start...this means they colonize their nearby asteroid and one other planet at the same time...doing this successfully does not require a colonizing capital ship though that will certainly help...

Successful double colonizations generally involve the use of scouts to wipe out krosovs and building turrets before building extractors...

After that, the next thing I look for is "the moment"...a player will either rush, or get rushed, and how prepared they are for that moment often determines the outcome of the game...did they fleet up too early and kill their economy?  Did they fleet up too late and get caught off guard?  

Good scouting, good early fleet composition, and choosing between extra colonizing and rushing another player are mostly judgement calls...other than "expand towards the enemy" there are few maxims that consistently apply...in general though, good players are proactive and either take the fight to the enemy or lead an enemy rush into a trap...

After that, there are so many different things you could look for...did they fight aggressively for neutral extractors?  Did they continue colonizing with small task forces while the game progressed or just sit stagnant?  Did they invest too much into technology or not enough?

In general, critical mistakes are the only other thing I bother looking for...for example, I was in a 5v5 game and I did everything right up until the point I threw my fleet at an SB I thought I could take...despite excellent colonization and driving off an early rush, I screwed myself over and went from 2nd to like 7th in fleet...

The point is, good players may in general "do the right things" but then make dumb mistakes or judgement calls...excellent players rarely make poor judgement calls, which is why they are excellent...

Examples of common judgement calls are:

• When to start building your trade network -- good players will lay down 3 or 4 trade ports at 3 or 4 different planets at the same time in order to get that trade length bonus (exceptions are TEC eco players you will go for trade instantly)...if someone only builds one or two trade ports, then waits awhile to build the 3rd and 4th, they probably made a mistake
• Building SBs -- SBs are expensive and are risky investments against human players who will simply bypass them...many times a player is better off building more ships than building an SB to protect themselves...there are times to SB, and there are times to fleet up...
• When to go for HCs -- rushing HCs can work out really well, but it also can screw you over since it is a massive up front investment...

Ultimately, excellent players will make the right call...what's right isn't the same every time, but if a decision seems to pay off then it probably was the best choice...

Of course, what defines good play depends significantly on the map size, team set up (FFA or team), and game speed...double colonization starts are an absolute must on faster game speed but almost impossible on slow game speed...if you are on normal, don't compare yourself to a fast or faster game because it is simply not a good comparison...an example of this is turreting...it simply doesn't work as well on slower game speeds, and you have to wipe out the militia with a cap or some ships...

One thing to remember about playing as TEC is that their ability to be a HUGE Economic juggernaut gives them some level of flexibility and leeway in regards to mistakes. With enough money, many short term tactical mistakes can be overcome. On smaller maps, I usually won't have more than 3 Civ Labs and 4 Mil Labs with all other Log slots going for Trade with maybe a few Broadcast here or there at crucial spots. Why is this so important? Let me illustrate:

Provided that you colonized effectively in the first 10-15 mins and have 8-10 Grav wells colonized, this means that by about 20-25 mins you should be easily bringing in 45-60 credits/sec not including any planet bonuses. Thats roughly 3000 a minute; even if you have low resources that means you can replace a cap ship every 2 &  1/2 minutes (includes build time and time to buy resources from scratch) or 30+ LRF's + some support flaks. Even with major tactical errors like engaging a SB when you should have just flown around and now you took a major hit to your fleet suddenly doesn't become a game ending error. Setback? certainly, but game ending no.

Always remember to play your strengths, for TEC it's economic. The idea that he with the most money can buy/replace the most ships and erego, win the battles if by no other means save attrition. This is why the TEC is generally considered the easiest to play because their strategy is not particularly nuanced. More Money=More Ships=More Firepower=I can steamroll you.....eventually.

Darvin3- you are correct for the late game certainly. TEC just does not have the raw firepower to threaten other fleets on the order of malice spam, scramble bomber spam, volatile nanites etc. My point was more that if you have done things right in the first 15 Min, then in the mid game (15-45 min) time span, there should be little that is a viable challenge to a well played TEC hence this is the time when they must gain the early advantege you spoke of. Once you are past the 60 min mark though, you better be sporting at least 200+ supply over your opponents fleets in order to even out the firepower.

As for:

in my admittedly limited experience, TEC LF's with Sabotage have actually proven an excellent contingency ship to be used against the battle-ball. The LF AI usually auto targets the Iconus and if you have roughly a 2.5:1 ratio of LF to Iconus which isn't hard as this means only having 25-30 LF's vs a typical Advent Ball with 10-12 Iconus, I have found that they quickly shutdown most shield projection use and as long as you have kodiaks and hoshikos to back them up against the illums, its usually game over battleball. The LF's damage bonus vs support cruiser helps as well.

As for Lockdown tactics, yeah TEC suffers in this regard. The only hope is a hasty retreat under the protection of Armistice.

 

I don't know why people say TEC firepower sucks.  TEC firepower is great, only surpassed by Vasari phase missiles against high mitigation targets.  Fully-upgraded Destras will also out-pace you, but an Advent fleet should be pretty well impervious to damage from TEC units by this point in the game anyways.  The problem is squarely on their support cruisers and capital ships.  The hoshiko buff in the last patch helped out immensely, but the fact remains that TEC zeniths at the 3-lab level and just falls behind from there. You don't have killer combos or abilities that grow increasingly power as fleets get larger like the other factions do, so you just fall behind even though you still have very competitive units in terms of raw power.


I don't disagree with this at all.  My point was more that if you make a big enough screwup your enemy will have the opportunity to draw out the game and reach those late stages at which TEC is seriously disadvantaged.  So I wouldn't use the term "leeway" here, since one good opening can throw off your momentum.  Against a skilled opponent you may not get a second chance, even with an economic advantage.


It'll give you an opening, but it's by no means a hard counter.  The Advent player can activate his shield projection before your cobalts get into range, and if the Advent can keep at least one projection bubble up at all times he's going to easily last long enough to kill off all your Cobalts.  It's certainly not unstoppable or overwhelming in these early stages, but the fact of the matter remains that the TEC player is going to have significantly higher difficulty pulling off his early win if Advent gets this combo on the field.


Not without a significant numerical advantage or outplaying the enemy somehow. 

Overall I think it is hard to argue TEC firepower is great; in fact, I'd argue it is inferior to both Advent and Vasari...the LRM and the Ogrov are the only two exceptions to this, with LRMs being the dominant ship in the game until fully upgraded phase missiles...

All advent weapons (except psionic weapons on SBs) have the potential to get at least a 30% bonus due to technology...plasma gets even more with a potential 15% cooldown bonus...

Vasari PMs obviously are the strongest weapon once fully upgraded, and account for every major ship in the Vasari arsenal other than the enforcer and skirmisher...

TEC at best only matches these weapons...missiles and autocannons have the same +30% bonus through technology as all weapons in the advent arsenal (without the extra cooldown plasma gets)...also, TEC have only a +20% bonus to laser weapons which accounts for their LFs, SBs, and caps...while this is arguably not that important, TEC are still inferior to Advent and merely on par with Vasari pulse guns/beams in this respect (both TEC lasers and pulse guns/beams account for LFs, caps, and SBs)...

So, just by analyzing the weapon technologies of each faction, TEC are clearly at the greatest disadvantage...TEC don't even get a break with more cost-effective technologies; missile and autocannon techs are comparable or more expensive than most Advent weapons (particularly lasers) and PMs...while Vasari pulse guns/beams are more expensive than say, TEC lasers, the fact is that Vasari still can rely on one track of weapon technologies (PMs) to upgrade most of their ships while TEC have to research two tracks (missiles and autocannons)...

If one is to look at the raw firepower of the ships, one will find TEC is at a general disadvantage...Advent LFs, flak, fighters, bombers, and HCs all do more DPS per fleet supply than TEC...the only ships TEC have that do more DPS per fleet supply when compared to Advent are the LRM and Ogrov...compared to Vasari, TEC are more competitive if one omits technology upgrades as PMs depend heavily on such upgrades...however, if one considers PM upgrades and the special ability on sentinels, then Vasari kanraks, bombers, fighters, and flak (at least against caps and SC) are all superior to their TEC counterparts in terms of DPS per fleet supply...IIRC, enforcers also outperform kodiaks in this respect, though I could be wrong on this...in any case, the only two TEC ships to outperform Vasari in terms of firepower are the cobalt and (potentially) the kodiak...

So, the combination of raw firepower and technology upgrades clearly puts TEC below the other two races in terms of DPS per fleet supply...the only two important circumstances where TEC weaponry is clearly the best is ogrovs and early game LRMs...in all other cases TEC are inferior or on par with Advent and Vasari...

If one also considers cap abilities like malice, energy aura, etc, the gap between TEC and Advent becomes more apparent as the game progresses...

TEC fleet strength does not rely on potential firepower but rather cost effectiveness...you simply get the same firepower for less (or more firepower for the same price)...this is one of several reasons why TEC fleet has such difficulties late game:  simply put, once every faction is allowed to reach their full military potential, TEC doesn't stand a chance...TEC merely is able to approach its full potential sooner rather than later, which is why TEC is the dominant early game faction...

While on paper TEC clearly have inferior weaponry, in practice LRMs are very successful (if not arguably the best ship in the game)...since it is rare that any one player fully upgrades all weapons, TEC's weakness in weapon techs really is not that much of an issue...generally speaking, it is the lack of strong AoE abilities and late game support ships that really hurt the TEC militarily...

While TEC have the best level 6 abilities, this is both a strength and a severe liability...as level 6 caps are rare, this strength is often not utilized and certainly not helpful early on (not that TEC need help in the early game)...furthermore, TEC are least able to protect their capital ships...while TEC do have the best repair bay and early access to repair cruisers, late game this is nothing compared to repulsion, shield projection, TK push, jam weapons, phasic trap, and overseers...

Furthermore, while I do agree TEC has (overall) best ultimate cap abilities, I think you are exaggerating their effectiveness...

Finest hour is not even remotely game changing for two reasons: first, raw damage is generally the least useful of any capital ship ability type unless it is on a very large scale (like malice or missile barrage)...though the damage of Finest Hour is debatable, it generally is not regarded as being a huge game changer...second, while finest hour does make the Kol harder to kill, so what?  GRG is a near useless ability on fast and faster game speed and does not scale well late into the game regardless of game speed...flak burst, while potentially powerful, in practice is not competitive with TK push or Jam weapons...and if you are making the case that multiple flak bursts can kill SC outright, you are severely overlooking the huge risks and opportunity costs associated with having multiple Kols...

Flux field also is not a game changing ability late game due to hoshiko healing...since this repair ability does not stack, being able to heal more ships doesn't really do you much good due to the nature of how fleets target only a couple ships at a time....overseers and domina subjugators clearly scale better into the late game in terms of healing power as both can heal more health than hoshikos...you could argue that flux field helps spamming dem bots, and that is a very powerful combination, but flux field does very little to help the survivability of capital ships or fleets late game...

Armistice is a great ability but it hardly makes your fleet invincible...since the ability can only be used 1/3 of the time, your enemy has more than enough opportunity to exact losses on your fleet...it would be one thing if TEC had overseers or repulsion, as one of these abilities combined with armistice would make it damn near impossible to kill TEC caps...but, TEC don't have this, and 2 minutes is more than enough time to snipe TEC capital ships or deal some serious damage to a fleet...

Rapid manufacturing is a great ability if used properly and represents the essence of TEC strategy: replacing losses faster than your enemy...obviously, missile barrage is also a very strong ability...

I certainly agree that 4 of the 5 ultimate abilities TEC are very powerful and very useful...however, there are some serious setbacks you are overlooking, mainly the difficulty as TEC in getting a ship to level 6 and then keeping it alive...

Your second point about TEC survivability is debatable...while TEC ships in general are the toughest for their cost, this doesn't magically override the fact that they have less DPS...TEC ships are not all that much worse in terms of DPS, but they also aren't all that much better in terms of survivability when you take into account all the dynamics...Advent shield mitigation, iconus guardians, and shield regeneration on the progenitor make for a very tough nut to crack...also, overseers actually do help keep fleets alive...at first this may seem counterintuitive but if you watch battles with large amounts of overseers, it is not uncommon to see enemy fleets waste minutes trying to kill caps or even heavy cruisers (switching targets works but many people focus fire on caps/SBs before going for the frigates)...

Regardless of that point, fleet survivability is not nearly as important as protecting high priority targets (such as caps or SBs)...you are certainly correct that TEC are more efficient at healing their fleet, but I would say that is not nearly as important as keeping SBs and caps alive...the only thing TEC really have going for them in this regard is repair bays, but those are easy to kill and only apply to defensive battles...

TEC survivability is certainly a very dominant factor early on due to their armor/hull techs and repair cruiser being available earlier...however, late game TEC survivability is easily overrated especially on the offense...Advent and Vasari are much better at protecting themselves from SC, and both have means to keep very important assets (SBs and caps) alive...raw repair rates simply don't scale well into the late game, seriously undermining one of TEC's greatest strengths...

Finally, I find it very hard to argue the TEC SB to be the best, especially for the reasons you have gave...first off, as already mentioned, Advent and Vasari are better at keeping high priority assets alive...while the TEC SB may be the most resilient alone (which isn't even true if you grant a Vasari SB all 4 defense upgrades), Advent and Vasari SBs are far harder to kill...repulsion with TK push and shield regen make Transcencias very difficult to take down...meanwhile, Orkies have the ability to move towards ogrovs and have complete SC cover from phasic trap...to say that TEC SBs are the hardest to kill is simply fallacious...shield restore is nothing compared to shield regeneration (which protects your supporting defense structures as well despite granting slightly less shields) or overseers (which can restore thousands of HP in seconds)...TEC also don't have SC cover (TEC hangars and flak burst are good but don't disrupt bombing runs like TK push, phasic trap, or Jam weapons) and don't have good protection against ogrovs (unlike Orkies ability to move or meteor storm)...

Early and mid game, Vasari SBs are significantly better than TEC SBs...they are easier to deploy, better offensively (since they move), and actually more resilient when alone...late game, Advent SBs are significantly stronger as they have meteor storm and mass disorientation...if you want to make an argument for why TEC SBs are the best, I would not focus on their survivability or the Red button ability (players will simply avoid your SB and you will rarely get the opportunity to use this unless you are fighting the AI)...docking booms is a very good fleet support ability and helps keep structures alive (large formations of gauss platforms are very powerful with this ability supporting them)...also, TEC SBs get more trade revenue and can build frigates, granting them the highest utility in uncolonizable or allied gravity wells where you normally can't build frigate factories or trade ports...

Seleuceia, I have a feeling you haven't really played any good TEC players of late have you?

I don't believe people are TEC bashing. TEC has some amazing strengths, namely in being the economic fuel for late game Vasari/Advent fleets in Team Games and in the rush game for 1v1 or FFA.

To address some of the comments made:

1-Yes- TEC has some great late game abilities. Armistice is admittedly powerful. but a mid battle micro of detonate antimatter, sabotage reactor, disruption field can make this a relative non-issue. Flux Field......sure its great, good luck getting a level 6 Dunov (micro-ed bombing run can make short work of this if your are worried about it. Missle Barrage is great, if you actually allow the Marza to get off the whole barrage and you decide to stay in range. Most things that will be killed by a single cast of this ability can move swiftly out of the AOE and those that cant can take much of the damage. Finest hour is nice but not epic. Sova has the only real fire and forget of memorable effect. It can be great to replenish ships quickly, no arguments here on that point.

2-Yes TEC can Tank. Thats how it is possible for them to win. However, they excel at slow fleet wide repair. They struggle to quickly take care of high DPS on a single key Target ie Starbase, crucial high level Caps.

3- Ogrov is great, no arguments.

4- Starbase.......really? Really? You do know that 40-50 Bombers will pwn a starbase from the safety of the other side of the Grav Well completely out of Red Button of Death Range? And if its TEC vs TEC, Ogrov+Targetting Uplink=Dead Starbase.  Again, this is nothing against the Argonev, its perfectly respectable in it's role. I just don't believe its the "Best Damn Starbase period." I don't really think there is a "Best Damn Starbase period", they each have different roles and in those roles, fill them well. Transcenia is crowd control, Argo is fleet support and Orky is Tank. Do they each have some abilities that allow them to do other things? Sure, Orky can phase stabilize and have a trade port, Transcenia can spread culture and grow allegiance, Argo can go emo and kill everyone. BUT these are not primary roles. Orky is made to tank it has highest weapons & armor, has uber shield upgrade and "I eat your dead ships upgrade". Transcenia does mass space dementia, meteor shotguns your ships and goes all WRATH OF GOD on enemy planets. Argo repairs ships, refuels them and makes new ones to fill in your fleet holes. No one is better than the other.

Nobody is saying TEC is bad, we are merely objectively pointing out their weaknesses. I can do the same thing for Advent and Vasari if need be, but for now I am sick of typing.

Ok, i got a replay here of how TEC rolls in early game, middle game and late game. Its a 4v4 with some average to above average players and myself. Basically, I have one partner leave early, another drop in mid game and the last one isolated and loses all his planets and then starts raiding. Point of this replay is to show how a well played TEC can dominate, and later on, can be literally unstoppable, based on the reasons i posted earlier in this thread.