View Full Version : Beast strat development
18th Nov 01, 8:11 PM
Well, I came back into this game to find the balance with beast for 1v1, beast vs taaw - basically to find counters to the taaw missilyte/mimics swarms, since that is the only strat that people listed as "beast killers" - allowing a taaw player to destroy or cripple beast early so that it is unable to build up properly, then use attrition tactics to destroy it.
So far, I've got 2 strats that work quite well for beast survivability - The first one I used was a fighter swarm. It is still a very powerful, forgiving strat. Once taaw aco/ACV tech is obtained, beast can easily out-produce taaw as far as fighters are concerned. The second one involves starting off with multigun corvettes and IAFs, and building up a significant number of them to defend against missilyte attacks.
Of the 2 strats, I find the first is most effective if you don't know what you're going up against. It'll rock any other beast strat I've seen except for the second strat above ;) . It's also effective against taaw.
I've got a few more tricks to share.
Tactic that is effective against EMP:
Aside from detonating 2 IAF bombs amung the ACV swarm, I find spitting my vettes up, and attacking with 3/4 of them at first from multiple vectors helps to keep the number of stunned ships low. The other 1/4 I use to screen out mimics (a single IAF scuttle does this better tho...).
Tactic against EC-equipped acolytes (whether they use FS or not):
Attack with a mixed formationless swarm of recons, intys, CFs and bombers. As the 2 swarms meet, issue a kami command to the recons and interceptors, and let your CFs and bomber just do their thing. Whenever I do this, I find that almost all my bombers and interceptors will survive, and that the fight only lasts about 10 seconds. I think 1_Alpha uses selective kamiing like this.
I always forget to research at one some point during a given game. You really shouldn't, especially when using beast, 'cause it can be a real setback. Don't use EPA to research unless you really, really need a specific tech in a hurry (like in the MGV rush, or if you see someone with a siege cannon closing in and you don't quite have DFG tech yet). EPA to build is seem to have more bang for the buck when you have RU, and a lot of producable units.
Beast resources at about half the rate of taaw when you combine the effects of 2/3 collection rate and 2/3 the speed. So, make lots of them. Anything over 20 is good, 30 is ideal - you'll actually have cash to hyperspace some big stuff ;) .
Interestingly enough, it seems a single infection beam will get an instant kill on any supercap or CS below 15% or 20% health.
It seems vettes do more damage with ECs than without. At first I thought I was double the damage, but it turns out to be somewhat less. However because LRS is something you'll see in a late beast vs taaw game, it's probably not a good idea to research energy cannons, as vettes equipped with mass drivers are the most effective way of getting rid of mass-swarmers. NEVER, EVER upgrade to ECs on the beast command ship, as it seems more likely to damage itself with them than anything else.
If you infect a ship with armor, and a fighter with armor3, don't both researching armor2. If you simply research armor3, you'll get armor2 for free (once armor3 research is complete, you'll see that you can upgrade strike craft armor as well).
These things own. They are tougher and pack quite a bit more punch than their taaw counterparts. 2 beast missilytes with 4 stars experience are all you need to kill a single taaw worker. If you get aco tech as beast, deal out some missilyte attacks backed up with some of the other fighter types.
2-3 kami bombers will kill a taaw worker. 9 kami bombers will kill a small crystal, and I think it's 15 for a large one. If you need to finish off lots of workers quick before a bunch of acolytes come in range, 30 bombers will take out 10-15 workers in a flash.
That's all for now, anyone else want to add anything?
19th Nov 01, 2:43 PM
Now that people are on to them, I'm seeing a LOT more use of ACVs for travel, usually in some large, spread-out formation, or formationless. I have to use IAFs in pairs now, and can still get about 10-15 ACVs with the pair easily enough, so it's still marginally economical to do. The blast radius is large enough to damage quite a bit more distance ACVs, making them softer in battle. However, mimics are super-vulnerable to the blast, so I use IAF scuttles to take out scores of mimics as well.
19th Nov 01, 7:29 PM
vettes suck =[
20th Nov 01, 9:11 AM
Words of strategic wisdom from Skibb
21st Nov 01, 9:36 AM
main thing to mention for ALL games is the fact, that u dont have to destroy the enemy mothership to win if u attack. u still can do this later. only kill workers and slow down enemy RU income. do this as fast as u can.
dont bother if u lose 30 interceptors to get 4 workers
dont bother if the other is scutlling his processor to kill your fighters. he has to rebuild it and his workers are less effective if there is no processor available.
the workers are the weakest part of a fleet and also the most valueable. a taaw worker is just a little better corv and most of the time it is not moving.
if the other got acos attack them first. i dunno why, but everytime i'll attack taaw acos in equal numbers with my ints they always prevail. advantage: u wont have any trouble with acos later cause u keep their number down.
if u have trouble with fighters, there is another fast way of worker killing: beast ray. main target for infect of an arriving carrier should be the processor (best if just 2 workers are docking). u got another unit right next to your opponent, secure your fighters of scuttling and slow down RU income.
if there are fregs near infect those and use them to kill the workers.
after that retreat your carrier (important !!) for infect recharging and wait till the second carrier arrives, then continue attacking the main targets: the workers
doing this properly the first int attack should start after 9 min with the finishing of the first carrier. send every new fighter instantly after the first strike force
on large distances wait for the second carrier and just attack with your fighters in larger numbers
eiden said he never had trouble with his strat.
i actually had never trouble with this, too
22nd Nov 01, 5:57 PM
see the ONLY problem is that beast need better resourcing capability. this pic is IMO how to fix the prob
22nd Nov 01, 8:20 PM
I don't agree.
Beast needs some sort of handicap because ( 1 ) it generally has better units - ie stronger verions of taaw units, plus most of its own ( 2 ) it'll be able to make more units at one time - it has a larger unit factory. Resourcing should be weak for beast in order to curtail it's enormous production potential.
22nd Nov 01, 8:41 PM
Ono, MVB found the forums.
The ACV rush works, just as long as you could keep the EMP working (cough*stealth*cough).
22nd Nov 01, 10:20 PM
ehm eiden if i posted a pic like that do u think i was serious :rolleyes:
23rd Nov 01, 12:46 PM
Get get a red 'x', no pic, so I thought you were serious ;) .
25th Nov 01, 1:11 PM
I've almost finished developing a beast swarm, and am working on a corv pump (missile corvs + heavies with mgc for defense)for beast... I can release the swarm but the corv pump is still weak...
Beast Fighter Swarm
EPA to research until it runs out.
Start by building 8 recons and 3 workers. Research fighter drive w/ epa on it immediately. Once that's done build 7 interceptors. Continue pumping recons and inties and cloaks when you get them. Try to have another processor and 2 extra workers for harvesting small crystals before the tech is finished working, you don't need to build any more workers except for that. Build supports when you need them. This strat is much like the "Beast Fighter Rush-Close Quarters" listed in the Cata Bible... I apologize if this strat is already in use, but I did develop it on my own. :)
25th Nov 01, 2:20 PM
vette strats dont work well at all compare to prepatch =\ they are not worth it
26th Nov 01, 1:14 AM
MGV-based vette strats are not weak. If you think they are, then you probably haven't encountered someone doing it properly. I think MGV strats are just as strong pre-patch as post-patch against taaw anyway. Against beast, the argument's obviously moot.
6 vettes by 5:15 is pretty damned nice defense. Recons attacks are actually a benefit because they make the vettes get 4 stars far more quickly (goes about 650 m/s and has about 600 firepower), while not doing enough damage to be a threat.
26th Nov 01, 2:51 PM
6 vettes at 5:15 > 30 some fighters (or more depending on race)?
ps no one who corved well went mgc swarms prepatch sorry =\ i should know i was a big time beast corv swarmer
if you wanted to win you would get heavies then missiles-no MGC then dff or whatever.
26th Nov 01, 4:24 PM
6 mgcs by 5:15 is pretty good... although multis do take their time with killing fighters. :/
26th Nov 01, 6:19 PM
Where did I say that MGV were used pre-patch? Could you please point it out for me? I don't see why anyone would have tried if heavies researched faster and were cheaper RU and SU wise...
Now, would someone here who's reconswarmed me at 5:30 plz tell skibb what those MGVs can do to 20 recons and 12 acos?
26th Nov 01, 8:23 PM
I think MGV strats are just as strong pre-patch as post-patch against taaw anyway
right here smart ass
6 MGC can kill 32 fighters? heard of the kami command? MGC have crap for armor and will die
27th Nov 01, 12:04 PM
And where in the sentence did I say "MGV strats were used pre-patch"? Nowhere smartass. I said they would have equal strength before and after the patch. Plz read what I post, not what you think I post.
And another thing, a significant chunk of kami fighters will die BEFORE impact. Recon kami does crap damage, so all the MGVs have to do is slow down and destroy half the acos by concentrating fire on them as they approach. However (and this is experience talking here), if you don't manage your vettes properly, you may lose your 6 MGVs, but it'll take pretty much all his fighters to do it. If u know how to use MGVs, you probably would never lose more than 2.
Before you reply, I want to tell you that I know what I'm talking about. I've used MGV rush strats against many of who are considered amoung the best players in this game today, and they acknowlege that it works quite well.
27th Nov 01, 5:02 PM
here you go buddy
i did a little test online with a friend
20 recons and 12 acos vs 6 mgc (btw i could have quite few more fighters then this by that time getting over to you (when you have 6 MGC)...including travel time on momoland)
and guess what won =\
i had 7 recons 10 acos left-4 acos with 3 or more stars and 2 recons with 4 stars all in green health
your "significant chunk" would be 5 fighters would die b4 the kami
and how do you manage em correctly? we tried attacking recons only-vettes lost
attacking acos only-vettes lost
we did FS with vettes-they still lost
I want to tell you that I know what I'm talking about
obviously you dont- you seem to say that everything you say is right and it appears to be not =|
k one thing..why go MGC anyway? so you can play the defensive? dont tell me MGC are and offensive strat b/c it will definatly fail due to its slowness in build and speed-its just for surviving or killing off players swarms...
why would you want to play on the D when your beast in the first place? that has to be really bad-just letting the enemy build up stuff while he disorients you with his little assaults (if he does attack) only to find that you jsut have a good number of corvs and maybe a few frigs near mid game and he has an ass load of frigs (which by the way TOTAlLY RAPE VETTES)..and a belly full of mimics? all they have to do is CS rush you-or just go mad frigs and ACV's if they like.
i have played agasint quite a few vetters and so far it is just a crap game plan
27th Nov 01, 6:00 PM
Skibby, who did you test this against? I suck at micromanagement, but even I've been able to repulse NemesisChicken's ten acos/twenty recons at 6 minutes. I had a mere six MGCs.
Try it with a good micromanagement player, AKA Eiden or dzur, and your attack shall fail.
27th Nov 01, 6:03 PM
I HAVE found the forums, and now everyone's days are once again numbered
27th Nov 01, 7:25 PM
Its about 8 kami recons to kill an MGV. So ignore recons ~ have 5-10 recons kami into them, or guarding your vettes to absorb some enemy kamis. Focus on targeting the acos 4 at a time ~ just damage them to slow them down. If they are in formation, you'll slow all the healthy ones down too, which are the next ones you target to damage. Once most or all the acos are damaged, target and destroy the clostest ones. Don't be afraid to switch to evasive to break formation, or switch to sphere to delay successive kamis while you get your shots in. A tight vette formation is not what you want when the fighters get close. The most effective tactive I've ever seen against vettes.
BTW, I've never tried this, but it might work as well ~ did you try bballing 5 of the vettes around the 6 th and retreating so the vettes travel away from the fighters, but fire at the nearest ones (you can get the focus of the ball to fire while flying backwards by telling it to guard your CS if your CS is opposite the fighters)? Hmmmm I'm going to go and try that against kami...
If he doesn't kami, I actually have 1 vette attack 2 fighters at a time ~ acos first. 5 seconds or less and 12 of the acos die. 30 recons do almost nothing, so they just give the vettes stars.
BTW, the most fighters you can possibly build by 5:15 is 36: 15 acos and 21 recons. No more. You can have 6 MGVs and anywhere from 6-10 recons by then (more if you put off building some workers). Those most fighters I've seen online has been 35 or so, but that was using the recons given at the start of the game.
As to why go MGV in the first place, the reason was more one of I wanted a unit that made FS almost useless ~ MGVs do that. I used to use fighters, but the battles (and often the entire game) always hung on who could FS better in the first 7 minutes, not who could produce better, or who had a better research path. I wanted a strat that would take FS out of the picture. It turned out that MGVs + IAFs stop taaw swarms quite well. Wins for me are late-game. (BTW, I give YOU credit for the cloaked IAF scuttle trick, skibb - I first learned of how effective it was from some post you did somewhere a long time ago). Also, I find MGVs build up in effectiveness against fighters very fast ~ 100 SUs of vettes (20)beats 100 SUs of fighters (50).
27th Nov 01, 8:31 PM
i tested it with kushan and he did manage his corvs several different ways
if you guys (eiden) wanna try this crap out why dont we meet upto tes this out and ill show you it fails
im kidna tired of talking to a "know it all" who really doesnt seem to know what hes talking about
problem with the bball (im not quite sure..this is waht it would do in HW if you tryed this) the corvs would attack only one thing at a time leading to wasted firepower (over kill on one ship) but should be tested in cata to see what it does
and kami-is aucally a bad choice-FS is great you dodge alot of the corv fire while nailing on them-thats how i killed the vettes with minimal losses-so FS is hardly useless =|
You can have 6 MGVs and anywhere from 6-10 recons by then (more if you put off building some workers).
doing this is dumb-that puts you at even more of a disadvantage when going into mid game-wont have near enough money
It turned out that MGVs + IAFs stop taaw swarms quite well
bad thing is taaw players only do fighter swarms (aware ones) early game for the most part-they switch to frigs- rammers and mbf really own corvs and iaf
most @#$% you can get by 5:15....(i test things unlike eiden who just knows everything, there is no need for him to test anything)
23 recons, 14 acos, 3 mimics ALL WITH ADV. FIGTHER drive (that helps you know)
(most people dont realize that mimics without quantum still do quite a bit of damage)
AND i havnt even though of how much power a beast swarm could-it would have more fighters by 5:15 and all the fighters are beefier (but no adv.fighters drive-if you wanted it)
PS-cloaked iaf own fighters badly =[ i hate em(FU kusan)
27th Nov 01, 8:45 PM
skibb has a point, alot of ppl switch to mbf and rammmer late game.
27th Nov 01, 10:13 PM
I have a vette trikki that can deal with rammers and somewhat with mbf :/
28th Nov 01, 7:58 AM
skibb, It does work 1v1. I can promise you. 6 MGC against 30 fighters (recons plus acos) will die before impact. I've played eiden many times. It works, Kushan must've not been very good with corvs.
28th Nov 01, 8:51 AM
mgv is ok, if im sandwhiched.. ill research rush for mgv, and pump those suckers like theres no tommorow.. ive been able to hold back huge 2 person swarms before.. so theres no denying their effectiveness in this area.. the most effectiveness I see it as, is if people are gonna try to sandwhich you.. or even just cs rush you.. and like mimic dump or something.. they will find themselves in trouble.. as far as a taaw being far away tho, its not very effective.. a smart taaw only has to throw fighters and missilytes at you until about the 10 minute mark all on mulitple vectors, then now that its getting to be possible that you have multi/corv/support/infect (if you skipped destroyer, any kind of frig, and fighter) after the 9-10 min mark, he can switch up to mass quantom mimics on multiple vectors at your workers, if start seeing his mimics early, he will know you dont have infect, cause you went sensors first.. if he sees a destroyer being built he's gonna be safe for a bit longer, so he can switch back to groups of 4 missilytes, about 16 at a time.. he can even start to mix mimics into recon walls now, and etc.. if you got sensors.. sensors will not save you in anyway... this which will deny you tech of any kind, etc.. and just tech up his own tree.. threaten your position and keep you boxed in badly on crystal maps.. with you having no way to come out in force and attack him and keep those workers alive at the same time.. taaw plays a mean run and hide game.. and come out very mean in the late mid game...I give the ok the MGV based strats if they are going to cs rush in on you.. you're sandwhiched in a team game.. i however don't see it being much've a 1v1 strategy imo vs a skilled person who KNOWS what to do (being a beast, I know what works against me the best, and what I look out for, and what I hope they dont do at certain times..) perhaps eiden wants to prove me wrong though, im willing.
as for skibb.. numbers aside, ive been able to personally repell any fighter swarm rushes with mgv's from 1 to even 3 players.. altho I use max recons possible, hiding the vettes and put them and my workers under my cs.. use the recons to sphere the most central vette(vettes in a wall). they cannot kami just the vettes now.. they will waste some on recons.. and you have the cs's guns too.. this is just in dire defensive cases though in team games.. other then that I wont use vettes usually...
p.s. retreating battleballs own frigates.. especially if there is bombers in the bball.. they're retreating range is insane.. test it..
28th Nov 01, 2:41 PM
R u getting a bit touchy, skibb? U know this is only a game right? You shouldn't take it so seriously. Smoke some herb and calm down man.
BTW, everything I say is from experience. I test, but I also go a step further than testing - I actually open up the .big viewer and look at things like build times and fire rates.
If I see you, we'll definitely have to 1v1. You can educate me as much as you like. I try to be on after 8 PM PST weeknights (busy life doesn't let me fix a time - might be able to set up a time on a weekend tho, Sat./Sun. afternoons are usually open).
It takes 15 seconds to make a recon, so the most you can possibly make by 5:15 is 21 , because 5:15/:15 = 21. You have more because you start with a few more - so would a beast player. Also, I don't often see mimics that early because ppl want rammers out very fast on most small maps like CQ (to push crystals to inconvenient locations for their enemies as early as possible), so they research afterburner b4 holo. 3 mimics more than the numbers I posted is not exactly what I'd consider a "lot more fighters". They die far too quickly to MGV fire anyway, and you can identify a recon from a mimiced recon easily by its trail.
I like danger's idea of keeping the MGVs close to the workers early - it'll make effective kamiing much harder. I'll have to try that :) .
Now, how are you doing FS so that vettes won't hit? The only time I see FS making a big difference against vettes is when it's done with 1 or more switches/second. Incidentally, this makes the fighters just as invulnerable as if you were doing wobblies. Oh, and yes, I've tested this long ago (/me looks around for dzurlord).
Beast can have more fighters by 5:00 ~ hell, it can have 30 or more fighters by 3:00. Against that, the best thing this to play very defensively, hold the vettes back and use your CS guns, and get a DFG out ASAP. IF you can defend against the early fighter, your enemy will probably be crippled for RU (unless he's crystal rushing). Honestly, I haven't had to deal with 1v1 crystal rushed very much lately because most ppl play taaw. It's rare that I get to have a beast vs. beast 1v1 game.
When taaw switches to frigs, I make sure I have infect. I usually already have cruise missile tech - it's the only way I can find that actually gives beast a chance against the frig. swarm.
28th Nov 01, 3:46 PM
will die before impact
i said after that post that kami wasnt the best idea-fs'ing is alot more effective
R u getting a bit touchy, skibb
yah a bit im just tired of you "i know everything attitude--it really shows up in your posts
hey eiden- WHY DONT YOU TEST IT kushan and I GOT 23 RECONS sorries bro :F
brb gotta go to work post rest later (still got shit to say)
28th Nov 01, 4:22 PM
Now, how are you doing FS so that vettes won't hit? The only time I see FS making a big difference against vettes is when it's done with 1 or more switches/second. Incidentally, this makes the fighters just as invulnerable as if you were doing wobblies. Oh, and yes, I've tested this long ago (/me looks around for dzurlord).. [/B]
What, what?!?! Oh yeah that game =[[[[[[[[[[[[[
28th Nov 01, 5:57 PM
yah a bit im just tired of you "i know everything attitude--it really shows up in your posts
Hmm.. ok, whatever then... not much to say to that really except, well, that's too bad :/ .
I can make 21 recons @ 5:18. I start making them right away too. I guess I must be doing something wrong....
28th Nov 01, 7:27 PM
you including the ones your start with?
my FS=while coming into corv range i hit sphere to pretty much dodge most fo the frist rounds of fire from teh corvs-
about every sphere bloom i switch to wall-hardly wobbles and it does work well
and yes it is to bad :/
28th Nov 01, 7:47 PM
I'm talking about how many can be made. I even said that you'd add in the ones you start with - if you don't use/lose them doing early-game recon.
From your descrption of FS you sound like you're doing it a lot like everyone else - so CS guns should still have some effect against it as well (which is my metric for determining if the FSing is too fast or not). I'll show you online what I do to counteract it.
29th Nov 01, 6:54 AM
weird im talking about how many you would attack with (makes more sense towards what we are talking about)
yes CS guns would do alot of damage, so would your instant reinforcmants that you build-so if i did build some fighters (lets say 14 aco and 23 recons to attack you with) i would probly go for a worker kami and take out 2 or more workers-then it would be pointless for me to build many more fighters unless for defense
FS is to fast if they wobble-but honeslty ive never seen wobble fighters...i tryed once never got em =\ just sounds like ES
CS guns are kinda slow and they miss allot of fighters if the fighers are jsut attackign formationless-so thats no the best way to determin if its too fast or not
29th Nov 01, 9:31 AM
if he plays defensive and forces u to come in range ofhis CS, just burn his rocks till he comes to you....
29th Nov 01, 1:21 PM
You might not have those starting recons tho - they could be kamied out or destroyed my the same number of starting recons from the enemy side. Most ppl I play against just use the starting recons to do recon. Some get destroyed, some are off doing recons somewhere and aren't always brought into the fight. Against vettes, 2 or 3 more recons is not going to make a noticable difference.
If u go for a worker kami that early I don't think you'd have the numbers to kill 2... maybe one tho. It takes 8 or 9 acos (I can't remember the exact number) to nail a worker, and chances are you'd lose some fighters in the approach (10 kami recons+MGV fire+CS fire). Of course, I don't know for sure because I've never tried this ~ all my encounters so far have been either between my CS and the enemy's or near my CS.
CS guns do miss alot, but they also fire alot, and the beast CS gun (which are definitely buggy, BTW ~ I'll explain in a sec...) do a huge amount of damage when they do hit. Combined with MGV fire (to damage and slow down fighters), the CS will get a lot of kills.
Here's the beast CS gun bug - by default, the gun damage is actually whatever it should be with EPA to defense on - so if you turn EPA to defense, select the CS, and hit tab, you'll see the gun damage ends up being almost halved. I tested this by having the guns fire on an IAF below the CS with both EPA on and off ~ when EPA was on, the IAF got damaged more slowly than when it was off. The projectiles certainly didn't look like they were moving faster, so it seems EPA to defense is worse than useless. This bug may have been noticed a long time ago, but I never saw the post for it...
29th Nov 01, 3:26 PM
If u go for a worker kami that early I don't think you'd have the numbers to kill 2... maybe one tho
30 some fighters couldnt kill 2? granted some die..lol maybe 1? definataly one
29th Nov 01, 5:43 PM
I don't think you can get a beast worker with 23 kami recons, so most of the damage is done by the acos (if all fighters impact, then you should get 2, but under fire and kami recons and such I don't know if enough will make it through...).
I dunno for sure tho - no-one's tried this on me... they just attack my MGVs all the time.
29th Nov 01, 11:41 PM
K this is cool. I did several test scenarios:
All scenarios were 6 MGVs with 7 recons against 25 recons and 15 acolytes:
1- standard wall attack 1 MGV to a fighter, focus on acos first
2 - retreating bball when enemy fighter come in switching to sphere
3,4 - retreating bball against kami fighters (2 tests)
5 - fire retreat to CS against kami fighters - MGVs in formation.
The kami orders were given from a long ways away - well out of weapons range, so the enemy formation was actually quite spread out by the time it was being fired at. I think this worked a bit to its advantage as there were no moments where a damaged fighter would slow down the rest.
1 - enemy concentrated fire on 1 MGV at a time, which actually killed them off faster than they could kill off acos. Spreading the formation didn't help because the fighters adapted too quickly.
2 - Used recons to kami into acolytes as they attacked. recons switching to sphere formation were way too slow to get into firing range before all being destroyed, Switching back to wall actually slowed them down just long enough for them to lose even more ground. Case was worse for the acos. All enemy fighters were destroyed before firing a single shot. The vettes did not concentrate fire on single targets but did pepper all targets in range with constant fire. None of the enemy fighters could even get close.
3 - some recons were destroyed, but the majority were able to catch up and draw fire. All vettes were destroyed and 13 recons 2 acos remained, half of which were damaged. I looked at the recording and found another reason why the vettes did so badly: the one in the middle of the bball was hit first by about 6 recons fairly quickly and slowed down - this allowed the fighters to close distance quickly with the formation and slam into it.
4 - same as above except using recons to kami into lead enemy recons. All vettes destroyed, 2 acos 2 recons survived but were damaged. 1 more MGV would have made a big difference, but you can't have one that early with 7 recons without sacrificing worker-building.
5 - recons ordered to kami into lead enemy recons, MGVs told to guard a the distant CS. All enemy kami fighters destroyed, 2 vettes survive with 2 and 3 stars .
First of all, I'd like to apologize to skibb - I can handle 10 acos/20 recons easily with 6 MGVs, but 15/25 is much harder. I was wrong about 15/25, because I was thinking 10/20 - what I've encoutered the most online has been 10/20. So I'm going to be using either retreating bballs or firing-retreats for that initial battle from now on. At least I know that if I can eliminate all the initial attack while losing all my vettes, the next attack will have at most 15 acos and 12 recons when I have 6 vettes, which will probably work out far better because the recons won't be numerous enough to draw much fire and should get eliminated much faster.
30th Nov 01, 5:02 AM
is aggressive retreating (by guarding e.g. a carrier) cheating?
TP1_KenobiGURU considered this cheating !!!
what else is soon cheating
building units anyway??!?!?!
30th Nov 01, 6:40 AM
dont go starting shit antares, you stupid nwebie
TP just asked to see if there was a WAY to get your fighters to do that, he didnt know it was the guard command, he doesnt still think its cheating.
30th Nov 01, 7:37 AM
cool it people.
30th Nov 01, 12:18 PM
There a really easy way to counter ships firing as they retreat: Select your attacking ships and hit ~. Your ships'll stop and very soon stop taking fire.
BTW, I've got a way around doing the fire-retreat - I guard a recon, and move the recon when the fighters approach. This gives your the firepower of 6 vettes against the fighters, not just 5 - very noticable difference. I also use formationless vettes so if 1 get damaged the rest won't slow down.
I dunno if this can be considered a cheat - maybe, but both sides (ie. races) can use it in a tactical way, and it is countered easily by stopping your attack. You can also use it to against ppl to coral their units around, and open up a hole in their defenses.
30th Nov 01, 2:29 PM
plz accept my apologize
i asked him 2 times if he knew how it works and both times he didnt claim a clear "NO".
perhaps i should have explained it to him as he said:
"i dunno how to do this with taaw units"
was a missunderstanding by me :-(
It's really easy to get 8 heavy vettes out by 5:00 (or just a few seconds after). I've managed to get a good sized worker force of 9, an IAF, and 13 heavies by 10:00. Another combination got me 11 heavies and 4 MGVs by 10:00. I also got 15 heavies with 9 workers once.
Of course, these were just during quick build tests against the CPU.
I know you can quite easily mop up the 5 minute MGVs with the 5 minutes heavies ~ but that's all I've tried so far.
So, anyone who knows how to use heavy vettes, do you think these numbers are usable? I'll get a chance to play one of these days and see for myself...
For those who don't know what I'm doing here's the order:
EPA to reserach until heavy vettes are available, then EPA to build
vette drive->heavy->support-> whatever
Build: queue up 3 or 4 workers only to start (unless you start with less than 3). You should be able to queue up 6 heavy vettes right away (5 works okay too ~ you can do a few seconds of EPA to research support so that you'll be able to finish your first support mod by the time the you run out of SUs). 7-8 workers will keep you building heavies continuously as long as you pace support mod building ~ only building the support mods as they are needed. I typically start a new support mod when I'm down to 2 heavies in the queue, and the one being built is about 50% complete.
7th Dec 01, 5:04 AM
how is your MS looking like after that EPA ride?
sorry but i would prefer 30 ints after 5 min (this is also possible with EPA build). perhaps your hvys would own my ints, but who forces me to attack?
with my normal strat i wont have trouble with yours :):)
have u ever thought, that especially taaw players can change their tactics to compensate yours?
against those slow moving corvs rammers with ion would be a nightmare. one hit and ramm and a hvy is gone...
rammers would also be a good answer against your IAF.
yesterday i used FS for the first time in reality...
i got 21 ints against 16 acos. my opponent was technomage. he startet FSing and it took a while for me to realize it. then i countered. if he wasnt kamiing his acos i would have lost more then 3 ints but with kami i lost 6. after this experience i vote for:
ok forget my opinion.
i dont want this thread closed
7th Dec 01, 10:57 AM
This thread will be closed too if the FS row flames up again...
I'm just saying try 'em out. There's not much to counter your strat except a larger fighter rush, or play on a map that's too big for you to rush on.
BTW, I can't get 30 interceptors in 5:00 without making a major sacrifice in the number of workers I build, not to mention EPA puts my CS at 50%, so you'd be in the same boat. To get 8 heavy vettes in the same time requires no sacrifices.
Remember, ppl used to use heavy vettes before the patch. In the cata bible, it says that 12 by 10:00 is "reasonable". In reality, you can make those 12 by 8:00. Rammers? Not in numbers that early, besides, just use a retreating bball to destroy the one or 2 you could see by then ~ vettes are slow, but rammers are slower.
And no, taaw actually doesn't have more flexibility than beast as far as research goes. Sure, it can research 5 techs at once, but those techs also take 3-5 times longer to get researched. So if taaw had to cancel researching one tech to react to beast, it usually lose a LOT more research time doing so (never mind delays due to that module-building). Beast has the truely flexible research ability, not taaw.
I just had a game (that synced) and an test session.
I used a total of 9 heavy vettes to take out 50 fighters. The vettes were completely unmanaged, and started sustaining heavy damage due to mimics.
I hate to think of what they can do when managed ;) .
8th Dec 01, 5:01 AM
i tried it myself. perhaps it got a certain chance :-)
revival of the hvy corv :-)
i made another test:
45 int including support = 45*65RU + 6*500RU = 5925 RU
build time only for ints 14sec*45 = 630 sec
11 hvys including support = 11*350RU + 4*500 = 5850 RU
(advantage of 5 SU and 75 RU for hvys)
build time only for hvys 40sec*11 = 440 sec
i forced them to attack each other and watched the battle. i have done it 3 times and the ints always won with 29 to 33 surviving ints.
if anyone now says you could manage your hvys much better then just think about FSing for fighters.
i dunno how u managed your hvys, but i think u cannot take down 50 fighters at once with 9 hvys...
perhaps in waves this is possible
8th Dec 01, 10:27 AM
Wow...I need to try this out.
Either of you manage to get a test in of MGCs vs. Heavies?
50 fighters comprised of about 30 recons and 20 acolytes (there were some mimics that made it in and hit as well) ~ by the time you'll see 50 acolytes you can easily have 15 or 16 heavies, or 10 heavies and 4 multiguns, or 12 heavies and an IAF to scuttle, or 12 heavies and 10-15 interceptors, or 15 heavies and infect - lots of options. I'm trying to use heavies as an early form of defense - something to defend you until you get get a carrier out, or infect tech, or some other tech that you deem appropriate.
If you want to get better kill number, bball your vettes, and move the focal vette away from the attacking fighters, you should be able to get a few kills before the fighters even fire a shot. Once the fighters start firing on the vettes, select all you vettes, put them on evasive, and tell them to attack the fighters.
You don't have to build the heavies for long. You only need enough to defend yourself early. Also, if you can eliminate all enemy fighters and get 9 heavy vettes over to their resource op by 6-7 minutes into the game, getting worker kills will not be hard to do. If you manage your vettes and attack fighters as they come in, then focus back on whatever worker you're beating down, you can be a real pain in the ass ;) .
9th Dec 01, 5:24 AM
this numbers should ONLY show the power of those hvys nothing else. i made another tests
13 MGV vs 45 int (RU advantage for MGV)
ints won with 15 remaining
14 MGV vs 45 int (RU advantage for ints)
MGV won with 7 remaining
16 hvys vs 45 ints (well ...)
hvys won with 8 remaining
the problem of hvys are their low turning rate, lower range than MGV and their firetime. they just cannot handle a lot of fighters cause they need MUCH longer to track a fighter and really do damage to it.
hvys always loose against MGV for equal money
10 missile corvs = 320RU*10 + 1333RU for support = 4533 RU
30 interceptors = 65RU*30 + 2000RU for support = 3950 RU
won by missile corvs with 2 casualities
of course great RU advantage for ints BUT cause i thought misscorvs suck against fighters i didnt mind.
it was a REAL surprise for me
after that i used the 8 remaining misscorvs against 15 scouts and 10 ints. using extrem FSing with those fighters (1 switch/sec). of course they dogded all missiles, but then i slowed down FSing and *WHOOP* half my fighters where gone. the missiles werent lost all the time and not hit their targets at once.
the corvs won with 3 units left
the MAIN advantages of missile corvs IMO:
build time 25 sec
no shot is lost
can fire even if the enemy is behind
a lot cheaper than hvys (converted SU to RU)
can destroy cryst (for CQ)
can have up to 6 after 310 sec without EPA
extrem FSing give misscorvs no chance
Originally posted by AntaresSITH
the MAIN advantages of missile corvs IMO:
no shot is lost
eva seen a bunch of missiles trying to catch up with a recon/acolyte? and when they finally do it just takes bout 4 missiles to do the job - the rest is wasted.
9th Dec 01, 8:42 AM
but the missiles did their work in any way. they killed a unit. mass driver bullets are lost if they dont hit their target.
One thing I'd like to point out is that when you lose 8 heavy vettes and they lose 45 interceptors, you've lost 2800 RU, whereas they have lost 3600. By the time they have those 45 ints replaced, you'll have 24 heavy vettes to go against them.
BTW, what happens when you use a retreating bball of vettes against the fighters? I do this online quite a bit, and 10 vettes vs 40 acos nets about 8 kills before the acos can hit the vettes. After that I usually bandbox the acos and put the vettes in evasive.
You see, the idea is that you may spend more RU building up, but you'll spend a lot less later on when you have to replace units.
Another advantage to vettes (heavy vettes in particular) in general is that their firepower really goes up when you upgrade them to energy cannons because they end up having almost the same firing rate, but more damage per shot.
9th Dec 01, 2:49 PM
in a 3v3 on cq, i researched hvy then multi. worked very nice vs ody's acos....
9th Dec 01, 5:26 PM
Missile 'vettes have been in use post-patch for a long time. I myself had used them ever sence I began doing beast.
Anyone test how they stack vs. other beast corvs?
9th Dec 01, 5:33 PM
So Heavys cost 75-78 more ru for 1000 more armour and 5-15 seconds more build time. I'd prefer them to the other 2 vette types.
HC vs MC would be something like 5MC(2:05) vs 3HC(2:00)
MC=2225 RU=7500 Armour
HC=1551 RU=7500 Armour
Someone see which side wins out of these 2?
and i prefer sentinels - 75RUs, 3 SUs, 500 health = a dead vette(xept heavy). slowass speed tho.
11th Dec 01, 10:12 PM
I'd like to point out to anyone who runs test on their own ships that friendly fire reduces the overall damage done to friendly ships. This means the grouping of ships with the higher overall firepower will be the one to win every time. If you are going to run tests the only valid way to do so is with another player.
12th Dec 01, 2:44 AM
even eif there was friendly fire (how do u know? :-) it is equal for ALL your units and thus fair. u can still make tests with your own units.
12th Dec 01, 2:11 PM
There are behavioral differences (such as the inability to bball, agressive units will not autoattack, etc.). The proper way to test these things is to get online with a friend and try them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.