Re: Basic strategies for winning almost every map

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@xxxxxxx>]

On 01.04.2005 13:19, Jonathan Koren wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> > On 28.03.2005 22:31, Jonathan Koren wrote:
> >> [craving for complexity]
> >
> > I can understand that, up to a point. [...]
> 
> You're talking to a guy that likes table top games that take 20 minutes to 
> resolve damage.  Not so much the 20 minute part, but rather the part that 
> says, "Your port side auxillary fusion generator is operating at 22% with 
> a mean time to failure of 6 turns.  You also have a coolent leak that is 
> leaking at a rate of 60 cubic liters per minute.  The tank will be 
> exhausted in 2 turns.  Oh and the leak is inducing a yaw force of 6 
> newtons, causing you to expend this much fuel just to maintain your 
> current atittude." :)

Alright, you're way beyond that point. ;-)

> > But carriers are useful today! Granted, there are no maps where they make
> > a real difference but that's another issue. You know that carriers can
> > repair craft, don't you?
> 
> I know that.  But once you capture a base, you don't really need them. 
> Well, I guess the base might not have crystals, but you know.

I guess that depends on how far away the base is, but you're right that we
currently don't have any maps where a carrier is really useful.

> The intrduction of airbases would mean that only certain structures would 
> be able to accept airplanes.  Anything could take land units, but not 
> everyone could take airplanes.  Sort of like how you can park tank at the 
> mall, but you can't land an f-15 there.

That's been possible for ages (though only with cfed, not with comet).
The only problem with this feature is that if you restrict a shop for
e.g. aircraft it becomes impossible to conquer that shop because
infantry is not allowed to enter it...

> > [submarines]
>
> They seem kind of redundant given torpedo boats have long range 
> capabilities.  The fact that a subs imply stealth, but the subs don't 
> actually have stealth.  It wouldn't be an issue if they were a surface 
> ship, say a cruiser, but as it is, they seeem kind of crippled, or as I 
> said, redundant.

You mean you'd be happy if we just labelled them "Cruisers" instead of
"Submarines"? Erm...

Anyway, if we can agree on a sensible and feasible definition of
"stealth" then I'm not saying it can't be done.

Jens