Frankly, that's probably close to a tossup, although the capital ship advantage *should* tip the balance. Once you got past the Gauss cannon they are fodder waiting for the mopup. The general attack odds that should carry the day is about 3-1 (based on my *ahem* years of gaming   ), and really on an entrenched enemy vs a frontal assault you would want 5-1.

(Not to pick on the example, but only 1.66 frigates to cap ships is waaaaay too few frigates - you would be better off with 20 cap ships and 75 more frigates [@ 400 ea]- and if you had scouted the system 1st and noticed all of the hangers you could have heavied up on the flak frigates)

Where the limiting factors on military might is going to have to come from is not only the cost of the forces, but also from the upkeep on them. If the upkeep in the later betas and final game is not limited to 75%, but in fact can go higher than 100%, then the results of negative cash flow and/or treasury balance will make economy of force the guiding principle of war instead of just mass of forces.

Then the combat odds (assuming that combat power, for purposes of this discussion, is proportional to cost) are only 1.25 to 1. And yes - I would expect the defender to win. Not without plenty of losses, and if the attack were focused the losses could be critical, but win overall nonetheless.

In truth, the actual odds would depend on the unit mix, but additionally, you would have to expect that the stationary units (including the hangers - stationary in this case meaning no phase drive) would have a relatively greater combat power to cost ratio than mobile (phase capable) units.

What this means is that the strengths (offense & defense) of the various units and the cost/strength ratios will need adjusting when balancing the game becomes the primary focus of development.

@Strat - With the lane system that may not be a possibility.

In regards to the choke point discussion i have a suggestion, i apologize if this has been brought up or mentioned so if it has please let me know.

i do like the idea that systems are connected the way they are and that ships jump to a certain area within the gravity well but i do see the problem with taking a planet. It would be interesting if the defense platforms (maybe also hanger bays) orbit around the planet at their given distance when constructed. The closer they are to the planet the faster they orbit. So......you could either set up defenses close to the planet orbiting fast enough so they can come back into firing range or have them at the edge of where they can be built orbiting slowly which adds another layer of strategy deciding when to attack or where to build your defenses.

Having your guns built in close means you need fewer to cover the whole planet as they orbit quickly, having them far out means you risk having them on the other side of your planet when an attacking force jumps in unless you have built a massive amount of cannons.

having cannons close to the planet means it's cheaper to defend but allows a whole fleet to jump in before they attack, having them out far costs alot more to cover effectivly but allows you to catch them as they jump in.

What do you all think? I haven't thought a great deal about how much they would cost, if they should be expensive or cheap but i think it would add a nice dynamic to the game, or maybe to have it as an option for the more hardcore fans?

Sorry for the long post guys!

Cheers,

~Todd.

Alt+Tab ?

@ 1Spartan - With 20 planets against 17, it would be a very rare map where there is only one border between the two players.

New idea for Ironclad to consider!

So far, the 'shield increasing damage negation' idea hasn't actually reduced reliance on focus fire...at all. Astax, in another post, put forward a good idea for helping further reduce the all-importance of focus fire tactics.

His idea was to give ships being hit by weapons fire a penalty to their accuracy (impacts would nudge the target ship, weapon hit flashes would distract targeting sensors). Combine this idea with the present shield system, and other tactics beyond focus fire might actually become feasible.

Thats what the Sins Beta 2 - Gameplay Feedback post will be for!

In two weeks I am guessing the new BETA will be out...

I get that the 75% upkeep cap is designed to allow players to quickly rebuild fleet loses. Still, I think the upkeep system should be allowed to beyond 100%.

Using a steady building pace, once upkeep reaches 75%, it could take progressively longer to to increase the percentage. That would both allow players to quickly recuperate from serious loses, while also preventing infinite fleets.

I have to agree. It needs the mother of all hatchet cuts!!!

That's a trick indeed...

Paradoxnt, I would say you are not thinking outside the box. Terrans in Starcraft have nukes. Does this make all zerg and protoss units and defenses useless? Something tells me 10+ million Koreans that worship the game would say “no” and then lol.

Artillery bombardments are used in ground-based situations to soften up dense/well-defended targets. All you need is something similar to this for space.

I would venture a guess that the guys at Ironclad already have units/weapons/ideas like this that are currently disabled and we will see them in Beta 3 or 4.

Cheers