Cobalts vs. Gardas

The devil is in the details of the maneuvers!

Given what my experiments (which I'm going to share herein) have turned up, I've decided that even this sub-topic of "flak is/isn't overpowered" deserves its own thread.

I've tested equal fleet supply of Cobalts vs. Gardas in the small scale, i.e. 4 Cobalts vs 5 Gardas. (Keep in mind that these two fleets have quite unequal production costs though, the Gardas being considerably more expensive; for an equal production cost, the numbers would have to be reversed.)

My experiments and results are as follows:
1) Well microed Gardas vs. so-so microed Cobalts: Gardas won with 2 losses. What I mean by well microed Gardas here is: turn at the right distance, so that the Cobalts are in range of the Gardas almost all the time. Run straight at the Cobalts' formation to maximize time spent in their blind side; this actually requires a fair bit of continuous attention and adjustment, as you'll see from the next test. What I mean by so-so microed Cobalts here is basically not let them focus fire to the point that they raise any enemy's mitigation above 30%. The Cobalts also stayed in one formation, but attempted to foil the Gardas' attempt to continuously blindside them by turning half their formation clockwise and the other half counterclockwise. This is actually quite important (under the circumstances of this test where Cobalts were bunched together), because when there was only one Cobalt left, the Gardas managed to blindside it for nearly a full minute (by just moving in around it at the right distance), and during this time the lonely Cobalt basically didn't manage to fire at all. 
2) So-so microed Gardas vs. barely microed Cobalts. What I mean by so-so microed Gardas here is basically an attempt to mostly automate their maneuvers from the previous experiment by pre-plotting 180s of various lengths. Alas, this failed to achieve the previous impressive result. The Cobalts won with a single loss on their side and another fairly damaged. The details of the Gardas' turns relative to the Cobalts' and the precise heading to the rear of the Cobalts' formation are actually quite important; the margin for error is pretty small. By barely microed Cobalts here I mean I basically just assigned a pair of Cobalts to shoot at each Garda and then left them mostly to their own maneuvering.
3) Well microed Gardas vs. well microed Cobalts. I actually got some ideas of how to foil Gardas' best maneuvers by observing how the less well executed versions thereof turned out in the previous test. So for this third test, the Gardas were microed as in test 1, but the Cobalts did a few things differently. First, they spread out, so they couldn't all be blindsided at the same time. I only did this in pairs initially, reasoning that if I'm going to see a difference, I should see it even at this level of effort. But after the dogfight went on for a while, the Cobalts ended up spread a bit more randomly without me planning that. The second thing I did differently was to not let the Cobalts get shot up "for free", meaning that once they we re blindsided, they didn't sit there, but bolted straight away from the Gardas to minimize the damage they took from Gardas' rear guns, while they couldn't shoot back. The third thing I did was to exploit Cobalt's superior speed to deny Garadas finalization/kill of the most damaged Cobalt. I didn't remove the most damaged Cobalt completely from the fight, but used it sparingly when its health was low, doing maybe 30%-50% shooting compared to the ones in better health. The result of all this work was that the Cobalts won with zero losses!

An interesting thing that happened in all three tests was that the Gardas basically pulled off the nearly ideal firing strategy (shooting preferentially at one target but only when its mitigation was around 20% or less) without needing practically any targeting orders! In contrast, the Cobalts needed plenty of orders so that they wouldn't raise the mitigation too high on any given Garda, especially in tests 1 and 3, in which they were given movement orders aplenty.

I've uploaded recordings of the above experiments to http://www50.zippyshare.com/v/27736806/file.html.

Now the tough question is whether the lessons learned from the well microed Cobalts in the small scale can be used in larger battles vs. Gardas to counter their rather more straightforward maneuvers. For me to even attempt this I need to find a simplified version of (3) that gets most that result. (I have some ideas, but they'll probably have to wait for the weekend.)

 

49,581 views 28 replies
Reply #1 Top

I've decided that even this sub-topic of "flak is/isn't overpowered" deserves its own thread.

LOL it already has several ones but OK.

So-so microed Gardas vs. barely microed Cobalts.

Yes, this results clearly shows flak is so OP I can't help myself but cry.

Well microed Gardas vs. so-so microed Cobalts

Can you do a test like this with LRM and Cobalts? Not microing the LRM's just letting them fire at will, but moving the attacked Cobalt behing the LRM's line? This is not an uncommon setup in a fleet battle, one cannot micro every unit he owns. I wonder what will be the difference to a setup where LRM's are microed as well.

The result of all this work was that the Cobalts won with zero losses!

Yes my initial feeling were like this, while this garda tactic sounds good on paper, but any better player will try to counter their movements, and there goes the advantage of flak. I think this is the main reason Flak spam is not viable online, along with the high cost of a Garda and the longer build time, and of course reduced strength against singular objects.

Reply #2 Top

LMFAO, even when flak spam is proven Op the anti-flak lobby is still stuck in denial...

Reply #3 Top

One thing you have to remember is that flak only gets exponentially more O p as fleet suply increases

Reply #4 Top

This is like those moon conspiracy theorists...no matter what you tell them, they'll just pull out another video that shows a cable or shadow anomaly.....

Reply #5 Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 4

This is like those moon conspiracy theorists...no matter what you tell them, they'll just pull out another video that shows a cable or shadow anomaly.....

:X I wish I could give you negative karma for this comment, even though I gave you [positive] karma elsewhere more than once IIRC (https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/user/3020178).

It takes a fair bit of work to do these fights according to a less-than-trivial maneuvering [and targeting] plan. As it should be plain obvious by now, there is a high variability in outcomes depending on the relative maneuvering of the two forces, even when starting with exactly the same OOB. It's probably one of the reasons why the previous results on this topic have been mired in controversy. I've not seen the maneuvers [and especially the counter-maneuvers] discussed in this depth before, nor have I even seen replays where someone tried to play both sides in non-trivial fashion [as opposed to leave one side for the AI.]

I'm also going to remind you that I've stayed away from this flak controversy until yesterday or so. I generally don't believe that simply repeating opinions is particularly helpful, so I prefer to post only when I have some [preferably new] facts. Ideally, such facts should be easy to reproduce by someone else [in science in general, and although this is just a video game, and with the risk of sounding pompous, the scientific method applies to testing hypotheses in it as well.] Now if you want to disprove one [or more] of the experiments I've done, you're welcome to post your own recordings.

 

Reply #6 Top

? Seleuceia was talking about the anti-flak lobby in that post, not denigrating your work.

Reply #7 Top

Yea I've witnessed that shift-queueing move orders for a group of gardas is very ineffective and barely any better than just parking them on top of the enemy and letting them sit. They move along the planned route very slowly, often stopping completely at any given waypoint, whereas if you issue each move order manually as the gardas reach each waypoint, as opposed to shift-queueing them all, they can move more or less continuously. This does require you to pay more or less constant attention to the fight in order to pull off, which is not an issue in SP, but would be a handicap in MP. However cobalts have the same requirement if they are to counter the tactic, so it kind of balances out.

 

Quoting Turchany, reply 1
The result of all this work was that the Cobalts won with zero losses!

Yes my initial feeling were like this, while this garda tactic sounds good on paper, but any better player will try to counter their movements, and there goes the advantage of flak. I think this is the main reason Flak spam is not viable online, along with the high cost of a Garda and the longer build time, and of course reduced strength against singular objects.

The barrier to Flak usage in online games is their research requirement and higher production costs, not the capacity for cobalts to still beat them with proper micro. It would be interesting to see what happened if Flak was able to be produced without research, such that they could be spammed from the start like LFs, and whether or not MP players would develop proper LF counter-micro as a response...... but ofc we will never know.

Reply #8 Top

Quoting WJC3688, reply 7
The barrier to Flak usage in online games is their research requirement and higher production costs, not the capacity for cobalts to still beat them with proper micro. It would be interesting to see what happened if Flak was able to be produced without research, such that they could be spammed from the start like LFs, and whether or not MP players would develop proper LF counter-micro as a response...... but ofc we will never know.

Erm, but isn't the fact that they require this extra research a balancing aspect to them?

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Turchany, reply 1
So-so microed Gardas vs. barely microed Cobalts.

 Yes, this results clearly shows flak is so OP I can't help myself but cry.

Sarcasm detected?! Well, the Cobalts were "barely microed" [perhaps an unfortunate expression on my behalf] by splitting their fire in pairs. This indeed qualifies as "barely" [in terms of effort involved] when just 4 Cobalts are present. But the number of orders you'd have to issue grows linearly with the Cobalts fleet [thanks to the poor interface for target management that Sins provides], whereas the Gardas can be moved as a group regardless of fleet size [and the Gardas seem to require no targeting orders to be effective, at least at the scale I've tested so far]. With the default/AI focus-fire strategy for the Cobalts, a quick guesstimate is that the their firepower would be effectively half of what I achieved in test 2 for a large time interval [until they are cut down to 2 Cobalts]. Since the default focus-fire requires even less effort to test [vs. pre-plotted Garda paths], I've done such a test; let's call it test 4. The outcome of test 4 is that the Cobalts lost and 2 Gardas survived in good health. (Normally I don't bother uploading fights that require little work because everyone can try those quickly, but given how controversial this flak topic is, I've uploaded my test 4 to http://www29.zippyshare.com/v/48194013/file.html, just in case.) The outcome of test 4 is thus far closer to test 1 than to test 2, so while "barely" applies to the level of work needed to split the fire of 4 Cobalts [in test 2], it surely does not apply to the impact this simple order has one outcome of the fight! Unfortunately, the Sins interface does not allow such "split fire" order to be easily given to a large[r] group of ships.

On the other hand, a problem I've seen with pre-plotted/queued movement orders for Gardas [both in tests 2 and 4] is that they fairly consistently [not always but around 50% of the time] overshoot their turning waypoints. And when they overshoot, the Gardas overshoot by a lot, one grid length or so, which in this fight is basically 100% more travel than plotted. This makes the Gardas' rear guns less effective in tests 2 and 4. It's more or less the same effect on Gardas firepower as if the Cobalts were bolting away when blindsided, but instead caused by the Gardas own movement [bug]. Seeing this issue in test 2 is what inspired me to make the Cobalts bolt when blindsided in test 3, particularly because the bug doesn't affect all Gardas in synchrony. Most of the time, a part of their formation goes into the wild overshoot while the rest moves as planned, so you can get some visual comparison of the difference in firing volume between the two cases. Insofar, I have't found a workaround for Gardas' queued movement bug other than not giving/queuing more than one movement order for the Gardas [which was done in tests 1 and 3]. So, may the ship movement bugs ever be in your favor. But even with this unexpected "nerf" for the Gardas, microing the Gardas well isn't a lot of work and the amount of micro work required for Gardas' movement stays constant with the increase in their fleet size.

While I haven't found a non-manual workaround for Gardas' troubles with following a queueud flight plan, it seems to be less of an issue in scaling up than the trouble I'm going to have telling lotsa Cobalts what to [not] shoot at. I hope the Gardas will also sorta focus fire (by default) in the larger scale, reducing their effective firepower unless microed in that regard as well.

 

Reply #10 Top

Quoting WJC3688, reply 7

Yea I've witnessed that shift-queueing move orders for a group of gardas is very ineffective and barely any better than just parking them on top of the enemy and letting them sit. They move along the planned route very slowly, often stopping completely at any given waypoint, whereas if you issue each move order manually as the gardas reach each waypoint, as opposed to shift-queueing them all, they can move more or less continuously. This does require you to pay more or less constant attention to the fight in order to pull off, which is not an issue in SP, but would be a handicap in MP.

What I've seen is rather different, the Gardas sometimes move too fast an oveshoot their waypoints by a lot. See my post right above. Note that ships in Sins (regardless of type) won't reach their top speed if the waypoints are too close together. Without a recording and/or more details I'm not sure what you were doing and seeing. You can see the actual speed in the dev exe; it's in the "Entity Info" menu [c] under the option "Show Physics - Velocity" [j].

Quoting WJC3688, reply 7

However cobalts have the same requirement if they are to counter the tactic, so it kind of balances out.

Pulling the full array of counter maneuvers for the Cobalts from test 3 seemed like a lot more work for me than what I had to do there on the Gardas' side. But such impressions can be subjective. Alas the "user actions" counters from the "Empire" part of the end-game/recording summary seem to be bugged. I'm pretty sure I have given more than 39 orders to the Cobalts and more than 8 to the Gardas [in test 3], but those are the numbers of user action reported by the game there, for whatever they're worth as they don't even appear to grow over time [as they are plotted].

Quoting WJC3688, reply 7


It would be interesting to see what happened if Flak was able to be produced without research, such that they could be spammed from the start like LFs, and whether or not MP players would develop proper LF counter-micro as a response...... but ofc we will never know.

I'm probably going to do a full scale fight with actual production (not spawns) on my "Quick Frontliners" map with one side pumping LFs and the other rushing for Gardas... at some point. Those extended plays vs. self with full econ are quite time consuming to make, something like 3x-4x the recorded time. Never mind that the longer one plays, the more likely it is for the recording to end up borked.

Frankly, if one rushed for Gardas it's not far fetched to mix/co-rush Javelis LRFs at the same time because the Gardas counter corvettes (the LRF's early counter) and both of Gardas and LRFs are unlocked at the 2 labs layer. I suspect the issue is going to be the pressure that a large, early Cobalts fleet is going to put on the econ of the Garda/LRF player. It certainly seems unreasonable for the initial fleet supply not to be maxed out with Cobalts. Just the construction of 1 mil lab plus the research time for the 1st fleet supply upgrade takes longer than maxing out the initial fleet supply with Cobalts. Getting 2 mil labs can be done nearly in parallel (but not quite), by initiating the scrapping of a frigate factory right from time zero if the initial fleet supply isn't going to be maxed with Cobalts (as quickly), but this seems a huge gamble when the enemy is 3 jumps away. I can't play it in my head any further than that.

 

Reply #11 Top

Quoting RespawnedTitanL10, reply 5
I wish I could give you negative karma for this comment, even though I gave you [positive] karma elsewhere more than once IIRC (https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/user/3020178).

If you want to take things personally, that's your choice....

You are welcome to do all the tests you want, however I will remind you that the realities of competitive play are very difficult to replicate in "tests", especially when it is only one person...

In reality, each "player" is controlled by one person...while this person does not have the difficulty in controlling multiple "players" in game, they also do not have the luxury of pausing the game...one person cannot realistically model micromanagement and assess its difficulty in implementation when playing as 2+ "players" and using the pause feature...I have personal experience with this as I have done dozens of simulations with my own personal mod that makes significant changes to the combat counter system -- no matter how meticulous you are, the results you get when trying to do it alone and the results you get when having a friend help you are staggeringly different....

Additionally, your fleet sizes are very small and thus relevant to only a very narrow range of all gameplay possibilities...it would be incredibly rare for 4-5 frigates to be fighting another 4-5 frigates for a noteworthy amount of time without any capital ships or reinforcements...at such small sizes, the importance of passive regen rates and shield mitigation mechanics of individual ships become incredibly exaggerated...these effects become marginalized with larger fleets and thus you can get some very odd and unintuitive results when you involve so few ships....

Another issue with your test is that you are doing a fleet supply comparison...it has already been established by multiple people that on a per fleet supply basis, flak frigates can be made to win...you offer nothing new by confirming that result...what has also been discussed and brought up by multiple people is the complete irrelevance of such tests...fleet supply comparisons are grossly unrealistic when comparing flak to LFs...that you openly acknowledge this yet still do a fleet supply test is rather puzzling...

There are many advantages LFs have over flak that only an actual game will capture:

  1. Cost -- You can do the theoretical cost comparison, and doing so will of course significantly reduce the number of flak ships...however, an important consideration is that LFs cost no crystal while flak do...in the very early game, when you only have your HW and maybe the roid/moon connected to it, your typical income rates highly favor credits and metal over crystal (you can use the planet entity files to confirm that average metal count from asteroids and moons is much higher than average crystal count)...LF spamming needs you to only sell crystal while flak spamming may cause you to have to sell metal in order to buy crystal...this favors LFs significantly until you have several planets and your metal/crystal income rates are comparable...even then, LFs are still cheaper overall and will still be highly favored....
  2. Research -- because flak require a tier 2 research, you can't even start the research until you have scuttled your cap factory and then finished your 2nd lab...by the time you will be able to start building flak, your opponent will already have a significant advantage over you in fleet size...at the very least, this will force you to build some LFs until you have the research...
  3. Production speed -- flak build much slower per fleet supply than LFs...even if you somehow completely dismiss the cost discrepancy, the LF spammer is still going to have a larger fleet based on this stat alone....
  4. Focus Firing -- Because LFs can focus fire, they are significantly better at kill capital ships, structures, and starbases...if you try flak spam and come against a Vasari player, they will roll over you so fast since you will have nothing to drive off their capital ship or stop their starbases...even against TEC or Advent, the other player will have a much greater advantage in driving off your cap, sniping your construction frigates, and destroying your factories...

There is a reason why no skilled people spam flak to counter LF spamming...it's because it DOESN'T WORK....even Sinkillr himself spams LFs online instead of building flak, which should show more than anything that the strategy is not valid....

The LF player will amass a larger fleet than you and even if you somehow were able to go toe to toe with them in a fleet battle, their LFs will have a huge advantage in being able to drive off your cap and destroy your structures....if someone somehow magically was able to have as much flak as I do LFs in terms of fleet supply, I would just go hit their factories and focus on their cap, and I'd take less losses doing it than if the enemy was able to focus fire on my ships with LFs....

Finally, rushing LRFs and flak is almost as bad as spamming flak....LRFs are much slower than LFs or flak, which allows your opponent to run their fleet around and destroy structures...if you do this on ICO, your opponent will run circles over you and eventually roll you....

 

 

 

Reply #12 Top

The problem with Seleuceia isn't that he trolls... its that he mixes half-truths with lies...

Reply #13 Top

Oops multi-post

Reply #14 Top

Oops multi-post

Reply #15 Top

What I've seen is rather different, the Gardas sometimes move too fast an oveshoot their waypoints by a lot. See my post right above. Note that ships in Sins (regardless of type) won't reach their top speed if the waypoints are too close together. Without a recording and/or more details I'm not sure what you were doing and seeing. You can see the actual speed in the dev exe; it's in the "Entity Info" menu [c] under the option "Show Physics - Velocity" [j].

 

The effect that I'm seeing is that they overshoot and then sit still forever since they have to make such large turns, or as you described, they just move very slowly in general and do not accelerate to their top speed. I have utterly failed in all attempts to get a group to move at a "smooth" pace, with a consistent speed and no sitting still while turning around, using shift-queue orders.


I'm probably going to do a full scale fight with actual production (not spawns) on my "Quick Frontliners" map with one side pumping LFs and the other rushing for Gardas... at some point. Those extended plays vs. self with full econ are quite time consuming to make, something like 3x-4x the recorded time. Never mind that the longer one plays, the more likely it is for the recording to end up borked.

 

That should be interesting, I'm not brave enough to try to simulate actual games yet lol. Like you mentioned by expectation is that in a very small map where you can jump to the enemy territory so fast it is not going to work...... while 1 Mil lab is a sunk cost basically since you need to get the fleet supply upgrade anyways, you're looking at the resource cost for an additional Mil lab and the garda research, which is enough that your opponent will have at least 3-4 more cobalts than you before even accounting for the higher production cost of the gardas themselves. Those extreme early game numbers are going to be all important in such a small rush-based scenario. Trying to tech up to even this small extent would probably work better in a scenario with larger territories, so that players cannot rush as quickly.

 
If you want to take things personally, that's your choice....

You are welcome to do all the tests you want, however I will remind you that the realities of competitive play are very difficult to replicate in "tests", especially when it is only one person...

In reality, each "player" is controlled by one person...while this person does not have the difficulty in controlling multiple "players" in game, they also do not have the luxury of pausing the game...one person cannot realistically model micromanagement and assess its difficulty in implementation when playing as 2+ "players" and using the pause feature...I have personal experience with this as I have done dozens of simulations with my own personal mod that makes significant changes to the combat counter system -- no matter how meticulous you are, the results you get when trying to do it alone and the results you get when having a friend help you are staggeringly different....

Additionally, your fleet sizes are very small and thus relevant to only a very narrow range of all gameplay possibilities...it would be incredibly rare for 4-5 frigates to be fighting another 4-5 frigates for a noteworthy amount of time without any capital ships or reinforcements...at such small sizes, the importance of passive regen rates and shield mitigation mechanics of individual ships become incredibly exaggerated...these effects become marginalized with larger fleets and thus you can get some very odd and unintuitive results when you involve so few ships....

Another issue with your test is that you are doing a fleet supply comparison...it has already been established by multiple people that on a per fleet supply basis, flak frigates can be made to win...you offer nothing new by confirming that result...what has also been discussed and brought up by multiple people is the complete irrelevance of such tests...fleet supply comparisons are grossly unrealistic when comparing flak to LFs...that you openly acknowledge this yet still do a fleet supply test is rather puzzling...

There are many advantages LFs have over flak that only an actual game will capture:


Cost -- You can do the theoretical cost comparison, and doing so will of course significantly reduce the number of flak ships...however, an important consideration is that LFs cost no crystal while flak do...in the very early game, when you only have your HW and maybe the roid/moon connected to it, your typical income rates highly favor credits and metal over crystal (you can use the planet entity files to confirm that average metal count from asteroids and moons is much higher than average crystal count)...LF spamming needs you to only sell crystal while flak spamming may cause you to have to sell metal in order to buy crystal...this favors LFs significantly until you have several planets and your metal/crystal income rates are comparable...even then, LFs are still cheaper overall and will still be highly favored....
Research -- because flak require a tier 2 research, you can't even start the research until you have scuttled your cap factory and then finished your 2nd lab...by the time you will be able to start building flak, your opponent will already have a significant advantage over you in fleet size...at the very least, this will force you to build some LFs until you have the research...
Production speed -- flak build much slower per fleet supply than LFs...even if you somehow completely dismiss the cost discrepancy, the LF spammer is still going to have a larger fleet based on this stat alone....
Focus Firing -- Because LFs can focus fire, they are significantly better at kill capital ships, structures, and starbases...if you try flak spam and come against a Vasari player, they will roll over you so fast since you will have nothing to drive off their capital ship or stop their starbases...even against TEC or Advent, the other player will have a much greater advantage in driving off your cap, sniping your construction frigates, and destroying your factories...

There is a reason why no skilled people spam flak to counter LF spamming...it's because it DOESN'T WORK....even Sinkillr himself spams LFs online instead of building flak, which should show more than anything that the strategy is not valid....

The LF player will amass a larger fleet than you and even if you somehow were able to go toe to toe with them in a fleet battle, their LFs will have a huge advantage in being able to drive off your cap and destroy your structures....if someone somehow magically was able to have as much flak as I do LFs in terms of fleet supply, I would just go hit their factories and focus on their cap, and I'd take less losses doing it than if the enemy was able to focus fire on my ships with LFs....

Finally, rushing LRFs and flak is almost as bad as spamming flak....LRFs are much slower than LFs or flak, which allows your opponent to run their fleet around and destroy structures...if you do this on ICO, your opponent will run circles over you and eventually roll you....

 


Please. No one ever said anything about "ICO-viable" strategies against "competitive" players. Setting up a strawman to try and knock down...... another typical under handed tactic of the Anti-Flak Lobby.

Reply #16 Top

Quoting WJC3688, reply 15
Please. No one ever said anything about "ICO-viable" strategies against "competitive" players. Setting up a strawman to try and knock down...... another typical under handed tactic of the Anti-Flak Lobby.

If a strategy is not even near viable online, then it is not an excellent strategy, and most importantly, not even near OP.

You could say starbases are OP because AI ships die to that miserably, but still, starbases are not OP just the AI is stupid.

For me it seems you are most likely only talking about single player use of mass flak, but as I previously said before somewhere else, against AI you can do whatever you want, that does not make it the best way nor the most efficient. I wouldn't be surprised you could win only by building Hoshikos or even some more exotic fleet composition, as the AI is so stupid once it lost like 10 level5-10 capital ships on my shielded turrets on a heavily fortified dead asteroid (but no allied fleet there)..

Reply #17 Top

Some more tests. Today we send the Advent into the Frigate Deathbattle Arena

 

5 defense vs 5 disciples

Flak wins with 2 ships left alive. I believe this is due to my micro improving since my initial cobalt vs garda tests. I just ran my defense vessels through the disciples over and over, then circled them when it got down to 2 because they would both turn in the same direction, allowing me to "blindside" them more or less indefinitely and rather easily.

5 defense vs 3 ilums

Very easy flak win.... there are 4 still left alive, albeit one only has 60 hull remaining. I didn't do any micro really I just parked the fleet on top of the ilums so that most if not all of their banks could fire and let them go at it. As RespawnedTitan mentioned flaks have a more efficient firing strategy compared to other ships' auto-attack because they split their damage, one of the ilums only had 30 something shield mitigation when it was about to die.

5 defense vs 7 acolytes

I got to use this same group of flak for the next test without killing and respawning... because they won with no hull damage :)

5 defense vs 1 aeria (bombers)

The aeria amusingly runs out of SC and antimatter with about 300 hull left and all 5 Flak still alive. Attempts to run away or micro the aeria prove fruitless.

12 defense vs 1 Prog

8 defense left with full hp when the prog dies. Again run-through micro is needed to make the Flak fire properly but it's not particularly difficult.

 

5 disciples vs 3 illums

Only one ilum dies, the other two have full health. Just like flak, they can use run-through micro while still firing at the LFs from behind them. Unlike Flak they have a very long range so they can run far behind the enemy and still fire, "blindsiding" them for even longer than flak. They do win with 4 more fleet supply left over compared to the Flak..... which is pretty darn awful if you consider that ilums are supposed to hard counter LFs, and LFs are supposed to hard counter Flak!

5 disciples vs 7 acolytes

Only one disciple dies. Meh.

5 disciples vs 1 aeria (fighters)

Two disciples die before the aeria goes down.

12 disciples vs 1 prog

The prog takes this one very easily, I have it at colonize at level 1 but after killing the 7th frigate it leveled up and I gave it malice set to autocast. By treating it like a big flak and running it around the disciples I was able to prevent some of them from firing. The prog wins with about half its hull left.

3 ilums vs 6 acolytes

One ilum dies, another has about half health. Once again corvettes proving to be not much of a "counter" to LRF. Notably this result is not much different from Shrikens vs Javelis.

3 ilums vs 1 aeria (fighters)

Due to how slow the ilums are the aeria can run away from them and keep them from firing for long stretches of time. It wins without even losing any shields.

8 ilums vs 1 prog

Only 3 ilums are left although they do win. No attempt to micro the prog.

7 acolytes vs 1 aeria (fighters)

The aeria only takes about 50 hull damage before it wins.

17 acolytes vs 1 prog

Since the prog has a strong combat ability against frigates I decided to level it up to 2 and give it malice for this fight. Unfortunately, with only the damage from the capship and its fighters, the malice propagation is not enough to overcome even the flimsy corvettes' shield regen, and does not really do anything. The corvettes still win with 13 left alive, although I believe in shrikens vs Akkan there were 14 corvettes left. So as I predicted there is little difference in the outcome.

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Turchany, reply 16


Quoting WJC3688, reply 15Please. No one ever said anything about "ICO-viable" strategies against "competitive" players. Setting up a strawman to try and knock down...... another typical under handed tactic of the Anti-Flak Lobby.

If a strategy is not even near viable online, then it is not an excellent strategy, and most importantly, not even near OP.

You could say starbases are OP because AI ships die to that miserably, but still, starbases are not OP just the AI is stupid.

For me it seems you are most likely only talking about single player use of mass flak, but as I previously said before somewhere else, against AI you can do whatever you want, that does not make it the best way nor the most efficient. I wouldn't be surprised you could win only by building Hoshikos or even some more exotic fleet composition, as the AI is so stupid once it lost like 10 level5-10 capital ships on my shielded turrets on a heavily fortified dead asteroid (but no allied fleet there)..

Yes..... you can win against the AI many different ways...... but your chosen way may not be the best way nor the most efficient...... so you admit that there are "better" and "worse" strategies against the AI. This allows us to conclude that the relative combat value of frigates does have meaningful implications for singleplayer. This is good because we know that flak can hard-counter almost any fleet comp tested so far other than pure LFs, and we know that the AI does not mass LFs after *maybe* the very earlygame (higher difficulty AIs tech up to other ships almost instantly), solidifying the evidence in favor of Flak being a powerful fleet anchor in singleplayer.

FYI, starbases ARE very OP in singleplayer. Good luck beating cruel or vicious without building them. However I have beaten Unfair without building any starbases, and just using fleet aggression. Know how? I'll give you a guess: The word is spelled with four letters.

Reply #19 Top

As the only guy in this thread with extensive multiplayer experience, I can tell you that flak spam is not only very powerful in 5s games, but the dominant "meta" strategy currently for frontliners. It is nearly impossible to stop once the numbers approach 20+ ships. Mix the flak up with some healers and its GG for the other team. About the only way to counter it is to get heavy cruisers or a titan.

Reply #20 Top

A quick update guys (no recording[s] alas, came out borked). As I suspected (at the end of reply 10) and as Seleuceia has said here (reply 11) and repeatedly many other threads, you cannot spam flak from the get go if the enemy is 3 jumps away (or less) and expect to survive its initial LF rush. Tested this on my Quick Fronliners map.

The next question is: after you build the only survivable initial fleet (as TEC/Advent) maxing the startup (100) fleet supply with LFs, at what point might it make a difference if you start building flaks? Alas, in my Quick Frontliners map, if you try to get the extra lab and research needed for flak while also colonizing the roid & moon and pump out the initial LF fleet, you run out of credits/resources. The extra few LFs that the enemy can muster as reinforcement (with credits that the other side spends on the extra lab+research) can turn the tide in a LF vs. LF dogfight. This is not so much because of what they can do to each other or the enemy cap [which is fairly invulnerable at that point in the game], but the extra LFs can go exterminate the planetary constructor frigates pretty much everywhere in the flak-builder's empire, putting it in lockdown. So trying to go for flak in the first 10 minutes (and possibly even later) is a losing strategy on that map. That's even so if the two sides use Sovas instead of Mazras as cap openers. (In theory, the flak would have fared better against the later, but they just can't muster the numbers to make a difference.)

In summary, insofar, the LF spam beats (on that map):

  • building no LFs but waiting for flaks from the get go
  • building an initial (100-supply) LF fleet then trying to switch to flaks

So flaks would have to came later... how much later (if at all) remains to be determined.

As an aside here, another thing I've noticed on that map is that in a close quarters situation like that (HWs 3 jumps away), the relative placement of the factory cluster and resources extractors on the HW is an even bigger factor in determining who wins than who gets their production cluster closer to the enemy. This is because repair platforms have a big impact in the early game, and they cost a fair bit, especially metal. The lucky ticket in this respect is when one side needs only 2 not 4 repair bays to keep (all) structures alive [for longer] at homeworld, i.e. when all initial structures at the HW fit within the radius of a repair platform (pair); 200 metal is roughly gained in one more minute of play, which in ultra-aggressive settings [rush and counter-rush], the other side simply doesn't have.

 

Reply #21 Top

In general, flak spam works when:

  1. You have a really good AoE to handle frigates (lvl 6 marza, lvl 5 corsev, titan)
  2. You need protection from SC and/or corvettes
  3. Carriers aren't an option because you need the firepower ASAP or you need to do a lot of phase jumping

These situations occur every once in a while...hell I've spammed flak a few times to protect my Advent titans...they aren't common though since usually you have a legacy fleet from the early game or carriers will do just fine....most times it happens when a frontliner gets a ton of feed to get a titan or an eco player suddenly decides to titan and fleet...

 

Reply #22 Top

HOW CONVENIENT that in the one test where flak is proven not Op, you dont have the replay... This is the bait-and-switch tactics of the anti flak lobby right here on display folks...

And Lol at Seleuceia admitting that he flak spams on a regular basis... ITS FUNNY HOW HIS views on this matter keep changing over time...

Reply #23 Top

Stilat, chillax. The only conspiracy here is of the game devs to not fix the bugs with the recording/playback system. (Maybe we should start a thread on that, by the way.) I can find multiple users posts here [besides mine] to attests to bugs like that. I usually delete recordings if they cause minidump on playback [I got a pretty big but not infinite SSD]. My Sins User folder is currently at around 6GB. These things tend to add up; they're poorly or not compressed despite being in binary format.

I [accidentally] posted a bugged recording for example in the Corsev thread (https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/453667/page/1/#3471365) called "crazy salvage2", where the Corsev "stupidly" dies [on playback anyway] without firing a big bang that would have killed the enemy and would have fed Corsev's health, etc., which is of course not what happened when I played it. There's no point in complicating this debate with "recordings" that don't actually reproduce what happened and/or crash. The desync is usually at some user actions, I've noticed. In that Corsev "recording", it just "forgot" to fire another boarding party. My oversight there was to assume that because that recording was short, it would be okay without watching it; turns out that it wasn't.

Based on my previous experiences, the odds of recording extended play vs. self correctly are generally not good. For a game that involves a lot of user actions (and the early econ/colonization/build orders are pretty numerous, and X2.) I guesstimate it takes about 20-30 mins of play for the chance of Sins crapping out on the recording to be around 50%. I've only got one successful 50-minutes recording (posted in another thread) and three failed ones of similar lengths for a full scale game. Totally weird shit happened in the failed recordings like 40[-remaining] strong Disciples fleet stopped shooting at an Orky when it was down to 200 health. And then they just targeted irrelevant stuff while the Orky killed them all. What player would do that? (Remember my comments on the 1st MP recording you/Hyradlig posted? Like so-and-so just left his cap ships sitting there doing nothing for a long time? When that's not what I saw on a 2nd playback... and probably not what happened in the original game either.)

Back to this early flak scenario(s): the play needs to be around 25-30 minutes long for one side to be clearly losing; killing structures takes a while with the early game fleets, even after you quickly eliminate constructors, and each side pumps ships for a while (keeping alive their production facilities as long as they can with twin repair platforms), but the relative fleet strength numbers stay about the same due to losses.

I can probably try to make a another recording. Which of the two scenarios I already described is your favorite for me try again, by the way? Actually, you can have me try a build order of choosing for the flak side, if you're willing to specify it. I think you saw the map I use[d], but if not it's given in https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/455085/page/1.

 

 

 

 

Reply #24 Top

So basically we need the LFs to maneuver better in order to make them deal with flak better. Fix of flak OPness.

Reply #25 Top

Respawn try dropping two military labs at the start and rushing LRMs (like in diplomacy metagame). Then switch to flak when the opponent pumps out vettes. Works wonders if starting distance isn't too close (flak+lrm beats LF+vette in every category (cost, fleet supply) besides build time).

 

Quoting Ryat, reply 24

So basically we need the LFs to maneuver better in order to make them deal with flak better. Fix of flak OPness.

Its nice to see one of the hardcore anti-flak party members to renounce their old ways.