Sins Forums*sigh*
260 Replies
233,757 Views
Sibilantae
13
Posts
495
Replies
8,790
Reputation
[quote]Oh, you just know it'll become a strategy in multi player once it's established.[/quote] Ok then... in that case, I once again disagree with Schod :P
260 Replies
233,757 Views
[quote]A.k.a. the overlords of the "ignorant newbie." [/quote] No, wait, Prof - understandable indignation :P but he might have a point there. It's the AI that's doing this, right? Would a human player do it?
260 Replies
233,757 Views
And, I need to improve my quoting ability.
260 Replies
233,757 Views
[quote] = Siege frigate rushes are NO DIFFERENT. It's a cheesy tactic that has no real functionality against ANYONE who sees it coming. It's ONLY good at killing newbies. Like flash tank rushing in TA, or zerg rushing in SC. This game is FAR more tactical, and even an HOUR of commitment to learning can teach you how to counter this "killer strategy" that ProfC absolutely refuses to accept. Funny, I thought you all agreed that Siege Frig spams didn't exist? <br
260 Replies
233,757 Views
[quote]no, no no no and no they were placed on fronts that were not engaged at, for instance the bigass gun I was talking about, the one that sieged paris? (I think its like something-betty, or w/e) it was placed so that the opposing forces could not easily get through the territory AND the air bases were placed far away, well outside the range of propellor planes (WWI)[/quote] Hmm... really? *hesistant* *beginning to panic where argument is in huge danger of falling flat* <
260 Replies
233,757 Views
[quote]A third of the people hate it because the AI constantly uses it- I AGREE WITH THIS.[/quote] I would call myself part of that third. My argument is that the AI shouldn't use it, and that the nerf will stop it from using it. If we agree on this, then we don't need to argue. But could I just clarify; the bombers used on Tokyo - they were successful in reaching their objective? That is, bombing Tokyo? Or were they shot down before they got there?
260 Replies
233,757 Views
No wait a moment. [quote]I'm sorry, have you ever heard of that little war known as WWI? how about WWII and germany with its lovely artillery? how about that giant-I-cant-remember-its-name-gun that shelled Paris from forests some 144 miles away? how about all of those medieval bickering-wars? how about the multiple sieges of Jerusalem? how about that little old nobody-knows-it battle of Gettysburg?[/quote] Germany with its lovely arty had support in other units, no? The giant-I-
260 Replies
233,757 Views
But thinking over the point, I wouldn't actually consider a bomber a siege unit. I'd rather consider it a bomber. And if you would equate siege frigates with bombers in this game, then why aren't they easily stopped by just as many gun frigates? Or, for that matter, fewer gun frigates?
260 Replies
233,757 Views
Well, I concede your point there. (I should have known there would that one time :P ) Could I go out on a limb and ignore air units? I know that's lame, but...? Could the bomber siege have been easily stopped by fighters though, or was Tokyo caught totally off guard? That is, would a commander with fighters under his command have been easily able to stop the raid?
260 Replies
233,757 Views
And to be entirely honest, sarcastic arguments like those from Prof and Scy, though amusing, aren't really all that useful in the debate.
260 Replies
233,757 Views
[quote]Maybe we don't jump to the conclusion that we are so good at this game, that within two days of release we know ALL tactics we lose to must be imbalanced, and NOT our own failure?[/quote] Scynix; it's not a matter of losing to them - it's a matter of them existing at all. Siege units shouldn't be spammed. They shouldn't. That's the nature of siege units. I don't care if I win against them, I'm just concerned that they're there. They shouldn't be. They shouldn't be. They shoul
260 Replies
233,757 Views
Thank you :P Lol, that's actually pretty funny. I'll look for that function when I get the game :P
5 Replies
17,583 Views
Spamming IS the issue. Since when would anyone, ever, want to spam a siege unit? It has the lack of common sense that's found in the shadow team spams in CnC3. A siege unit shouldn't ever be on its own - it must have some sort of accompaniment. If it can survive, or complete it's objective without that accompaniment, something is wrong. That's my point. [quote]you cannot possibly expect a spam to work with a unit that expensive,[/quote] We don't expect non-common sense spams in this
260 Replies
233,757 Views
Hmm, and have Cthulhu come out of interstellar space every now and then and gobble up a civilization :P
227 Replies
236,162 Views
Scynix, have you actually read our points? There just shouldn't be a spam in the first place.
260 Replies
233,757 Views
Same here. Your point is the embodiment of mine :P
55 Replies
67,206 Views
Annatar and Heffy have it SPOT ON! Schod's true too, but if you go too far and say that any complaint brought up AT ALL within the first days of release is by definition premature, then you're... being just a bit extreme. By that definition, an update containing changes other than bugs cannot be released within a week of the game's actual release. That's not cautiousness, in my mind, that's inflexibility. I mean, if the complaint were only about pirates, I would agree with Schod wholehe
260 Replies
233,757 Views
*Drools* Well, then you could replace the siege frigates with Little Kids. A spam of Little Kids is so, so much worse than a spam of siege frigates. It would be armageddon.
227 Replies
236,162 Views
Schod does make a good point, but I think it would only really stand for another "balance" issue with the game, and not for siege spamming. Spamming by the AI is a sign that the AI thinks it could be a good way to win a battle - so, since this game doesn't want that sort of strategy (the devs have stated that themselves) and especially with siege weapons, clearly the AI has to be made to think that the siege spam won't win for it. Siege units were never made for spamming. I wouldn't mind so
260 Replies
233,757 Views
I'm just checking, Schod. But you know my view on the matter, so I disagree with you :P
227 Replies
236,162 Views
I see Schod's point that it's way too early, and I think that's his main point. On the other hand, I don't think it is, truly... but I've stated why I think so so many times now I'm just sick of repeating it.
55 Replies
67,206 Views
Dammit! Why does everyone seem to ignore the point that the AI shouldn't have been spamming these things in the first place? Schod, you make a very good point, but I think it was annoying to (especially) newbies because the siege fleet just ignore any balanced fleet and went to the heart in a suicide run. THAT'S what I, for one, object to. I couldn't care LESS if the AI siege frigate spam were easily stoppable, even by the newest players here. What I REALLY care about is that t
260 Replies
233,757 Views
For crying out loud! [quote]It's not a viable strategy unless the planet is largely undefended and hasn't been built up. They are being nerfed some in the first update though because, as a practical matter, siege ships should be wimpy.[/quote] Does anyone actually realize what this means? As a practical matter, siege ships should be wimpy! Read it again! What does the statement mean? It means that siege frigates shouldn't be usable in a spam in the first place. I know th
55 Replies
67,206 Views
Has it occurred to anyone that the reason the siege frigates were nerfed wasn't because people couldn't beat their spam, but rather because the AI used them in a spam strategy in the first place? If that isn't the real reason, then I apologize, but I must admit, regardless of whether or not I could beat them, I wouldn't really enjoy playing against an AI that spammed siege frigates at me. It sort of misses the point of combined arms battles.
260 Replies
233,757 Views