Figment
2013-01-04, 05:45 AM
I've been wondering about this for quite some time:
Say we defend and hold Sungrey's southern outpost with our squad... What is stopping people from avoiding us altogether and strike directly at the base or take both other outposts and subsequently use those vehicle spawns against us and the base?
We can't be in four places at once, certainly not over such a large terrain. We don't have the manpower to cover that terrain alone and are forced to concentrate the ones we do have in one place.
Ps1 only allowed limited options over long distances (more akin to Esamir) though with only instantly recapturable towers without vehicle pads present As fixed foothold. Not only were those easier to sort out with a subtle or quick strike, but it focused your defense on two points and at most two directions (two empires) and made the enemy predictable, plus gave the local base holder the vehicle acquisition advantage.
PS2 logistics and base layout mean there is always one undefended outpost nearby where you can get vehicles. You effectively can't bottleneck enemies and funnel your attackers: your frontline always has holes and since this is a game, one cannot expect to station people on guardduty indefinitely. Not being able to bottleneck an enemy, means you are not able to stall until reinforcements arrive. In fact, enemies move around you so fast, bothering to ask for backup rarely happens: they will be too late anyway and your request will be obsolete well before you can make another /orders.
The only plug we have now is the adjecency rule, but with six sides to each territory (often leaving three to four choices for the enemy from one area alone, total choices can be a dozen), you cannot stop all advances against ghosthacks. All you can do is move into enemy territory yourself and pray you take it before they take yours. Again compare to ps1 where due to less links (lattice is a form of adjecency rule), the entire (enemy) empire had between one and five options.
Now you might say "we have four times the pop now!", so assuming same spread it should be roughly equal. But population does not scale that way as they tend to group together. In fact, population density works as gravity. In ps1 there usualy was something undefended. Balling together to face bigger enemy pops is a natural phenomenon that occurs primarily where a fight lasts longer. Take Mani, Mani requires more and more people to hold and take, acting as a sponge on surrounding terrain. The surrounding terrain then often falls quickly and the base effectively becomes a weakness, because it's not acting as a plug, but has the exact opposite effect.
Now, combat and populace flow theory and decision making (in both PS1 and PS2) is based on several things:
1. Zerg uses nearest base principle: the zerg is attracted by any direct fighting in the immediate area. It will behave like a child seeing a shiny object. It will gravitate towards the nearest enemy base (sometimes regardless if they have a link to it or not). In PS2 this means that a zerg with little territory will focus and with a lot of territory will start to disperse as they have less options at first and more nearby options later.
2. Nearest spawn principle: people tend to spawn closest to the fight, to minimalise the logistical distance to overcome.
3. Ignoring unimportant areas principle: In PS1 in particular you could often see towers in the middle of nowhere flip, or not be contested the entire battle (perhaps at the end when the continent was cleaned out after all other towers switched and this was the nearest tower spawn remaining). Basically, priorities were set for outposts (towers) with a direct threat to the empire through the lattice. In priority order: direct base capture threat (particularly LLU bases or those with significant linked benefits or hard to regain: Interlinks -> DSC -> Tech -> AMP -> Bio), linked facility benefit threat through gen holds (quick to sort) and lastly, drains (typically relied on covert use of AMSes).
4. Best Farm Principle: Interlinks, DSCs, Tech and bases on isolated areas created the best farming potential. The easier to hold, the higher the priority. In PS2: ex-Tech plants and... The Crown. Note that strong defensive positions surrounded by multiple factions are the easiest to hold, because both enemy factions frustrate the other's efforts.
5. Best starting point advantage principle: When opening continents, one choses those warpgates with beneficial links or strong fortifications that are easy to hold with small groups. Hence the order would be Tech -> Interlink -> DSC -> AMP -> Bio. Note the shift.
6. Best tactical benefit (removed from enemy): the order in which you'd want to cut them off would be Tech / Interlink -> DSC -> AMP -> Bio. However, since these are lattice linked benefits, you will prioritise any nodes that cut off the majority of bases at once. In PS2, this sort of thinking leads to trying to surround your enemy, though since the effect is less immediate most the time and easier to negate because small territories are quick to turn hands, it's not a very strong drive in PS2. This also goes for continental benefits. One reason why Oshur (Battle Islands) was attacked so frequently by TR was the repair benefit it procided.
7. Path of least resistance principle: If you have little opposition, it is an opportunity you can't ignore. If you can bypass an enemy to gain some sort of positional (or exp) advantage, you will exploit it. PS2 in particular allows this a lot as indicated above. PS1 typically required hard logistics for this, though often these low resistance paths would be taking LLU bases behind enemy lines or sending an outfit to say Kusag from Enkidu or Chuku from Aja. Basically you'd select those bases with few troops in them, where you can expect little response due to the zerg being far away or that can be captured rapidly. In PS2's three warpgate owned setup, the enemy zerg or populace is never far away though, nor are your links now, so you just take the holes in the frontline and keep pushing till something pushes back or you get cut off yourself.
8. Driving an enemy into another enemy: basically a combination of several theories, but it was based on luring an enemy into a fight with another enemy (typically a nearest base principle and having no alternate options), then moving such that you create a front with both enemies in order of one another as you moved through the enemy bases: basically, you tried to ensure that both enemies would be in close proximity so they'd fight each other primarily, then get behind them, bring both down to one base and then finish them off in succession, in part based on the likely invasion targets and in part with what the fastest order would be. Ideally you'd leave their last bases to be a LLU base, AMP Station or Bio Lab.
9. Nice borders principle: having nice rounded borders not only makes the map look prettiest divided (don't underestimate subconscious aesthetics), but also provides the best security. Particularly in an influence system. It minimises the enemy links in an adjecency (and thus also a lattice) system.
10. Home ground principle: general rule of thumb: the closer to an enemy home (sanc/warpgate), the more likely a fight. Not just due to easier logistics for the enemy, but also a matter of "national security" and not to forget, a matter of personal and factional pride.
In PS2, every base provides some lattice benefit that can lead to becoming surrounded. Prioritising is hard for the defender, where the attacker has ample choice. Meanwhile there's little incentive to defend smaller places because they're not exactly built for defense. In PS1, choice was less intuitive and more based on reason. In PS2, it seems to me the more intuitive flow mechanisms are most strongly incentized and that has a lot to do with the amount of targets available. As reasoning your next target becomes less of an argumented process, defensive reasoning becomes more reactive, rather than preventive. Basically, defenders will always be lagging behind attackers.
Say we defend and hold Sungrey's southern outpost with our squad... What is stopping people from avoiding us altogether and strike directly at the base or take both other outposts and subsequently use those vehicle spawns against us and the base?
We can't be in four places at once, certainly not over such a large terrain. We don't have the manpower to cover that terrain alone and are forced to concentrate the ones we do have in one place.
Ps1 only allowed limited options over long distances (more akin to Esamir) though with only instantly recapturable towers without vehicle pads present As fixed foothold. Not only were those easier to sort out with a subtle or quick strike, but it focused your defense on two points and at most two directions (two empires) and made the enemy predictable, plus gave the local base holder the vehicle acquisition advantage.
PS2 logistics and base layout mean there is always one undefended outpost nearby where you can get vehicles. You effectively can't bottleneck enemies and funnel your attackers: your frontline always has holes and since this is a game, one cannot expect to station people on guardduty indefinitely. Not being able to bottleneck an enemy, means you are not able to stall until reinforcements arrive. In fact, enemies move around you so fast, bothering to ask for backup rarely happens: they will be too late anyway and your request will be obsolete well before you can make another /orders.
The only plug we have now is the adjecency rule, but with six sides to each territory (often leaving three to four choices for the enemy from one area alone, total choices can be a dozen), you cannot stop all advances against ghosthacks. All you can do is move into enemy territory yourself and pray you take it before they take yours. Again compare to ps1 where due to less links (lattice is a form of adjecency rule), the entire (enemy) empire had between one and five options.
Now you might say "we have four times the pop now!", so assuming same spread it should be roughly equal. But population does not scale that way as they tend to group together. In fact, population density works as gravity. In ps1 there usualy was something undefended. Balling together to face bigger enemy pops is a natural phenomenon that occurs primarily where a fight lasts longer. Take Mani, Mani requires more and more people to hold and take, acting as a sponge on surrounding terrain. The surrounding terrain then often falls quickly and the base effectively becomes a weakness, because it's not acting as a plug, but has the exact opposite effect.
Now, combat and populace flow theory and decision making (in both PS1 and PS2) is based on several things:
1. Zerg uses nearest base principle: the zerg is attracted by any direct fighting in the immediate area. It will behave like a child seeing a shiny object. It will gravitate towards the nearest enemy base (sometimes regardless if they have a link to it or not). In PS2 this means that a zerg with little territory will focus and with a lot of territory will start to disperse as they have less options at first and more nearby options later.
2. Nearest spawn principle: people tend to spawn closest to the fight, to minimalise the logistical distance to overcome.
3. Ignoring unimportant areas principle: In PS1 in particular you could often see towers in the middle of nowhere flip, or not be contested the entire battle (perhaps at the end when the continent was cleaned out after all other towers switched and this was the nearest tower spawn remaining). Basically, priorities were set for outposts (towers) with a direct threat to the empire through the lattice. In priority order: direct base capture threat (particularly LLU bases or those with significant linked benefits or hard to regain: Interlinks -> DSC -> Tech -> AMP -> Bio), linked facility benefit threat through gen holds (quick to sort) and lastly, drains (typically relied on covert use of AMSes).
4. Best Farm Principle: Interlinks, DSCs, Tech and bases on isolated areas created the best farming potential. The easier to hold, the higher the priority. In PS2: ex-Tech plants and... The Crown. Note that strong defensive positions surrounded by multiple factions are the easiest to hold, because both enemy factions frustrate the other's efforts.
5. Best starting point advantage principle: When opening continents, one choses those warpgates with beneficial links or strong fortifications that are easy to hold with small groups. Hence the order would be Tech -> Interlink -> DSC -> AMP -> Bio. Note the shift.
6. Best tactical benefit (removed from enemy): the order in which you'd want to cut them off would be Tech / Interlink -> DSC -> AMP -> Bio. However, since these are lattice linked benefits, you will prioritise any nodes that cut off the majority of bases at once. In PS2, this sort of thinking leads to trying to surround your enemy, though since the effect is less immediate most the time and easier to negate because small territories are quick to turn hands, it's not a very strong drive in PS2. This also goes for continental benefits. One reason why Oshur (Battle Islands) was attacked so frequently by TR was the repair benefit it procided.
7. Path of least resistance principle: If you have little opposition, it is an opportunity you can't ignore. If you can bypass an enemy to gain some sort of positional (or exp) advantage, you will exploit it. PS2 in particular allows this a lot as indicated above. PS1 typically required hard logistics for this, though often these low resistance paths would be taking LLU bases behind enemy lines or sending an outfit to say Kusag from Enkidu or Chuku from Aja. Basically you'd select those bases with few troops in them, where you can expect little response due to the zerg being far away or that can be captured rapidly. In PS2's three warpgate owned setup, the enemy zerg or populace is never far away though, nor are your links now, so you just take the holes in the frontline and keep pushing till something pushes back or you get cut off yourself.
8. Driving an enemy into another enemy: basically a combination of several theories, but it was based on luring an enemy into a fight with another enemy (typically a nearest base principle and having no alternate options), then moving such that you create a front with both enemies in order of one another as you moved through the enemy bases: basically, you tried to ensure that both enemies would be in close proximity so they'd fight each other primarily, then get behind them, bring both down to one base and then finish them off in succession, in part based on the likely invasion targets and in part with what the fastest order would be. Ideally you'd leave their last bases to be a LLU base, AMP Station or Bio Lab.
9. Nice borders principle: having nice rounded borders not only makes the map look prettiest divided (don't underestimate subconscious aesthetics), but also provides the best security. Particularly in an influence system. It minimises the enemy links in an adjecency (and thus also a lattice) system.
10. Home ground principle: general rule of thumb: the closer to an enemy home (sanc/warpgate), the more likely a fight. Not just due to easier logistics for the enemy, but also a matter of "national security" and not to forget, a matter of personal and factional pride.
In PS2, every base provides some lattice benefit that can lead to becoming surrounded. Prioritising is hard for the defender, where the attacker has ample choice. Meanwhile there's little incentive to defend smaller places because they're not exactly built for defense. In PS1, choice was less intuitive and more based on reason. In PS2, it seems to me the more intuitive flow mechanisms are most strongly incentized and that has a lot to do with the amount of targets available. As reasoning your next target becomes less of an argumented process, defensive reasoning becomes more reactive, rather than preventive. Basically, defenders will always be lagging behind attackers.