Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop?

Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire

Message

concern -> Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/4/2020 6:28:49 AM)
A question for those with more experience. Is this a game where you have to conquer early and strong in order to dominate, or can you consolidate your position, expand incrementally through easy conquests and wait until your economy is fully developed before launching a planetwide assault on majors?

Gozzon -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/4/2020 6:42:31 AM)
In my opinion answer is No. So you cannot really conquer early and dominate. And no if you wait to get economy fully develop (whatever that means) you are off the record and everyone is way ahead of you. You do consolidate your position and expand incrementally (usually) but you might have to start dealing with a major because they are getting a lot of good stuff, are blocking you or just declared war on you and you need to put your resources into the war. I'd say it's more about consolidating your position but If you can launch an early rush on major: well it's one major less and more importantly it's one neighbor major less. At one point you realize that you have won the game and usually at that point I personally start just conquering any and everything I come across just to speed up the game.

Tomn -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/4/2020 9:28:57 AM)
Essentially you always want to be eating a minor if at all possible, but there are times when taking on a major before they get too strong can be a good idea, and once that happens you probably won't be able to devote THAT much attention to swatting minors. It's highly unlikely that you'll be able to spend the entire game eating minors before launching a single massive apocalyptic assault on all majors everywhere - circumstances are likely to force you into conflict with a nearby major well before that. It's usually a good idea to have absorbed and reasonably digested a minor or two before launching your first major war, though.

zgrssd -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/4/2020 11:15:48 AM)
I always try to grab minors next to me, as long as my troops are free to do so. But since I started doing that, the game grew a whole new host of Diplomatic Options to integrate Minors. If I ever get around to having a Diplomatic Council again, I have to use those.

GodwinW -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/4/2020 11:59:08 AM)
I am happy that in game starts where I start without roads in a forest (love these!) I have a seriously hard time getting out through the wildlife and getting even 1 second city. I had a great game where I had a huge stretch of empty land around me. I ended up founding 3 cities before I even conquered my first city. It was amazing. Having played LOTS of 4x games I was used to expanding aggressively and quickly being the key to victory but I'm very happy to see here it's not feasible and optimal. You really have to turtle if you have to turtle and it really does not mean you're handicapped. It's SO good in this regard, different from many 4x games!

demiare -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/4/2020 1:47:35 PM)
We can't answer on this question without determine first your game difficulty AND planet climate (=minors percentage). While it's very efficient to go on conquer spree since day1 when you're playing on regular using Siwa planet with large pops and most of minors ended to be farmers, you're definitely not going for success if try to do so on Hard+ and landed on moon packed with slavers. So IMHO it's highly situational, but you can't play "high" in SE, so by going turtle you're only preparing for invading your neigboors.

LordAldrich -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/5/2020 6:10:34 AM)
One factor that hasn't been mentioned that strongly favors aggressive early expansion is the GR grade equipment that you recover by being the first major power to explore Hex Perks or Free Folk settlements. These are incredibly imbalanced. If you recover medium, heavy, or monitor tanks - you've won the game. Just keep it supplied and that single tank unit will take any any early-mid game city on its own. This creates a snowball effect when claiming minor regimes, as you'll acquire all of their territory and so be the first to discover any treasure in their lands. And that's just the tanks! Never-mind what happens when you recover a nuclear missile launcher.

PyrrhicDefeat -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/5/2020 7:05:11 AM)
quote: One factor that hasn't been mentioned that strongly favors aggressive early expansion is the GR grade equipment that you recover by being the first major power to explore Hex Perks or Free Folk settlements. I'm still in my first playthrough but I would add that the initial turns definitely felt like a land grab race, not to conquer nations but to get as many artifacts and hex perks as possible, much like the Civ rush to get goody huts but with longer lasting impact. I mean perks that give +1 happiness or PP, meh whatever. But the +100 research point spaceships or +100 military research mechs seem like a huge early bonus. Also, when you can take hexes just by driving by, why not grab as many strategic roads and chokepoints as you can get while you're at it? Grab a road toward the minor you want to conquer first and get your border as close a possible before they push back.

LordAldrich -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/5/2020 7:33:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PyrrhicDefeat Also, when you can take hexes just by driving by, why not grab as many strategic roads and chokepoints as you can get while you're at it? Grab a road toward the minor you want to conquer first and get your border as close a possible before they push back. This is one thing the game does quite well imo - the reason to not do this is that it pisses off the minor regime, which will encricle you and cut supply to your advance elements. The fact that borders only exist insofar as you can project force to secure them is one of the more realistic ways of dealing with the concept.

eddieballgame -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/5/2020 10:02:39 AM)
The game I am playing now is an attempt to test the diplomacy game. About 90 turns in I am liking it...2nd place & everyone (including my leaders) are...happy. The Bug Regime, not so much...but are slowly being eliminated.

Malevolence -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/6/2020 12:26:24 AM)
How extreme are you willing to go? [1.04b3] [WAD] Impossible to lose the game?

Remington427 -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/6/2020 1:50:45 AM)
Generally, I try to conquer one or two minors as soon as possible, then digest my gains for as long as possible

Malevolence -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/6/2020 2:38:01 AM)
After you digest a few larger games you may find major regimes are inherently weak. Minor regimes can be easy or difficult, but they are usually tightly focused. Sometimes they are hard nuts to crack. Major regimes ravenously consume area, but they are spread thin like butter. They do not coordinate or focus the full might of their power against threats. Quickly the solution becomes friend smaller major regimes and then concentrate power against a few of the largest to ensure you meet the victory conditions. The only serious threat is a large major with a wide superiority in technology. If that happens, defend and build your technology to parity. Attack. Also, be careful not to BFF the super large major regime that is your best target for conquest. I have a suspicion that almost all players have not lost a Shadow Empire game, they quit because they assumed they lost. That said, I also believe terrain and terrain effects are the most serious adversary to the player's regime.

Smidlee -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/6/2020 10:12:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence I have a suspicion that almost all players have not lost a Shadow Empire game, they quit because they assumed they lost. That said, I also believe terrain and terrain effects are the most serious adversary to the player's regime. I wondered that from the very beginning that if it's possible to lose. I've played other strategy games that the AI was not good enough to win or finish the player. I figured as long you can continue to exist toward mid-game you will eventually win.

Tomn -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/6/2020 1:44:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence I have a suspicion that almost all players have not lost a Shadow Empire game, they quit because they assumed they lost. That said, I also believe terrain and terrain effects are the most serious adversary to the player's regime. Honestly, this is actually true of a LOT of strategy games throughout the industry. Your opponents are more often than not designed to keep you from winning rather than to make you lose. It's surprising how many games end up breaking and flailing if you deliberately play to lose. The AI just doesn't know how to handle you not fighting back or challenging them for dominance. Which isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing, since most players play to win and tuning an AI to respond to that is an efficient way of providing them with a matching challenge, but it does lead to odd results sometimes.

zgrssd -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/6/2020 2:01:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence That said, I also believe terrain and terrain effects are the most serious adversary to the player's regime. Major Regime vs Environment (MvE?) is the biggest danger in the early game. Even without Animals that try to eat your soldiers Logistics are the next big opponent, but it does somewhat overlap with terrain.

Smidlee -> RE: Macro-strategy question - attack fast or develop? (7/6/2020 3:27:51 PM)
One of the things I liked about Distant Worlds, if I start out even with the AI empires once I took the lead it was basically won,but DW gave the options to start some Empires which were already develop and ahead of the player which I have to form alliances to bring down the large empire. Some games allow teams so you can set up all the AI vs the player. One of the games where I could lost mid-game was Sword of the Stars especially if the AI allied against me. The Liir could wreck my planets if I didn't take care of them early. AI Wars is one which stays challenging to the end except for some overpowered DLC options which made it easier.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.203125