well ya. i was talking about cost vs fleet supply, and cost vs dps, instead of fleet supply vs dps.

and in the case of the support cruisers, effectiveness vs cost.

Well TEC are usually the underdogs especially when it gets to the late game so the descrease in cost is kinda of nessecary when it comes to that since their main strength is in numbers by then.

Pbhead you can decimate a more expensive (fleet supply) fleet of Crusaders with illuminators, halcyons (bombers) and repulse from guardians. So your answer to cost vs effectiveness is lrf is more cost effect than HC and utility cruisers are not cost effective in any way even when they have offensive abilities like the Hoshiko. It is also true the most cost effect Utility cruiser in terms of numbers is the guardian because 1 will guard an entire fleet with its shield projection and having 2 is more than enough for repulse and shield projection independently.

Riddle- Don't you think its a bit disingenuous to compare the effectiveness of a unit (crusaders) vs the very things made to counter it (Bombers & repulse). Thats like saying an Apache w/ Hellfire Rockets is more effective than an Abrams Tank. Ummm Of Course it is, the Hellfire Apache is specifically designed to counter all kinds of tanks. The true test is tank A vs Tank B or in this case Crusader vs Kodiak vs Skarovas. Also, Why would your analysis assume 1 fleet of a single unit and another fleet of mixed units. A mixed unit fleet will almost always be more effective.

 One of the reasons why I enjoy sins so much is that when a player changes the fleet composition new avenues of stratagem are open. Though these strategies are usually for those of us who can micro and macro while doing so….and thus the problem with comparing the fleet supply to cost is that rarely is the factor of micro and fleet synergy taken to effect. You can have a counter fleet to your opponents but depending on the gestalt of the map (Planet locations, defense, culture, support via pacts/trade, phase lanes) you can still easily lose. So in the end it isn’t necessarily the cost vs supply that’s the issue but how you interact with the other opponents.

And Qu4r said "LET THERE BE TROLLING"...so He made a 2nd account and called it RiddleKing...and for a while, the RiddleKing trolled the forums with ease, fooling the noobs and scrubs into thinking he was a different person...but then the RiddleKing regressed into the habits of Qu4r, and the noobs and scrubs were fooled no more...

But the forums saw this as a good thing, because the entertainment provided by the Qu4r's increased tenfold, and all saw that it was for the better...

lol, that is actually pretty funny. I haven't been around long enough to know, but that post is worth half a karma, so consider this an early payment.

I haven't played Sins of a Solar Empire yet, however I can answer the question about units cost and balance.

 When an RTS game comes out, it is always pretty well-balanced in skirmish matches against the AI or during the campaign. RTSes are also pretty balanced in low-average levels of online multiplayer experience. However, when it reaches the higher/elite levels of multiplayer gameplay, the super experienced players always and always find a supreme strategy, according to which 50%-70%-90% of the units are completely useless, cost-inneffective, or taking too much time to build. Their strategies are usually early rushes of 2-3 units combined with ultimate micromanaged techniques and the more players gather to the higher/elite levels (and they will reach this level of veterancy, sooner or later) the more "unbalanced" and "bad" the game seems. Because of that, the companies always have to create patches for their RTS games in order to change the building cost, time, hit points, damage etc. of the units and to keep the game alive.

 So, if you ask me, it is not the mistake of Sins of a Solar Empire for this unbalance, but the fact we always struggle for something more, we always push the game to its limit and, sooner or later, the game will prove it has a balance issue. Then, we claim the game is "broken to thit" and thigs like that. A game will always be "broken to thit" if you push it to its upper limits, no exception here! If a player believes he/she is such a great player and he/she have found the unbeatable strategy, just give us a brake and either stop playing with such a competitive way or stop playing the game at all!

 I know my opinion may be biased or something, but every experienced RTS player will find a deep truth in my words...

(Riddle King)Funny, just a couple of weeks ago I had to talk to my professor because a student got lost in the woods during an ornithology lab. Sorry a brief tangent, anyways ad hominems are not so funny but these past years I’ve always managed to garner a laughs from your’ posts; however the overarching humor of your quip didn’t add validity to your argument, but you did bring up a valid point, and partially due to the fact that I did give the scenarios in which I bring forth the units I discussed. I play random and currently I play multiplayer, or against multiple cruel to vicious AI by myself. I too have managed to kill several  advent light frigates with the Vasari’s and to that effect they are only good up until the mid-game, but having their techs allows for the HC to be more effective when it’s brought into combat.

(ARTHANASIOS) I had to stop playing StarCraft II/galactic civ II/Sins of a Solar Empire(2008)Age of empires when all I saw was practically the same strategies out of the other players or myself all the time, and it got boring ( even when I was playing random and trying the most insane strategies). When the pros start spamming a small amount of unit variance it just gets boring and the game loses luster for me.

(Higher tiers means the death of creative and people start acting like a complex AI with a bad personality)

(PBHead/public)

I just find our players and myself not using the advent’s flack frigate as much as the halcon because it does a better job dealing with anti strike craft and when the defense vessel is used it is in response to the early game LRM rush. So some of the ships I can see be cheaper for a faction than others because there are other vessels that are a must have that fulfill the role effectively because of overlap.

Are you sure you meant to say this?  Flak in general suck at killing large targets because they can't FF...disciples will do about twice as much damage against capital ships than flak will, and using LFs as cap killers is pretty ballsy mid-late game...if you are looking to kill caps, pretty much anything is better than flak...

and here i was raping a cap with my halcyons and swarm of defense vessels. Mmh i guess a little accuracy is in order:

Desciples will kill a cap faster than a defense vessel: Bombers will kill a cap faster than defense vessels.

A defense vessel does only 25% of its dps on caps but a 100 defense vessels will still kill a cap-- so why is it your using the slowest killer you may ask? uum cause everyone else has trouble killing defense vessels silly. 

-RIddleKing your stupid--what if they make light frigates? 

:Shut it noob- i build illums- with illusion: Who ever said just because a fat kid loves cake then he won't love cookies-with chocolate cream ?

-Are you fat Riddleking?

: No-now go away noob.. go very far away

Seleucia your the kind of person i would use as blue print to build an idiot.

Time ,money, economics, 200 units fleet with repulse, strength in numbers. cost and  cost effectiveness of HC?

If you can't connect the dots on these pointers then i was right about you-as you speak out of your ass once again to just prove you have an answer without proving it on the battlefield