Torp wrote:Okay, I'd like a short little class from the masters on target priority. No need for a game, a post in here would be enough.
Adjunct Professor Ace Rimmer Says:
Torp wrote:What units and structures do you put as your priority to destroy? In naval combat and when sending a nuclear strike.
In naval combat, I usually target the battleships first. I'm used to winning my naval combats, and unless I'm playing a good enemy, battleships will cause the most losses. Once I've taken out the battleships (using battleships, bombers and if the enemy does not send anti-sub with his battleships, subs (on passive sonar, with manual targeting), I mop up the rest. If the enemy is good, I'll try to go for his carriers if the opportunity shows itself (if I'm not winning the combat, I'd at least want to take out the enemy units that can actually cause me real damage).
This type of strategy is exactly why I win so much, and presumably why the other "masters" do as well. (as you said yourself) Your target priority is all off. Most every game that I play I end up with no/very few battleships but all/nearly all my carriers and anyone who's worth their salt will (and already has) say that carriers are the most important naval unit. So please define what you mean by wining... If I manage to take out every carrier an enemy player has but leave all his battleships and he takes out only my battleships (even all of them) but no carriers, he by far has not won the naval fight. Target battleships first only if you see them first. Why not become a master too?
Going on the offensive: Naval Target Priorities:
- If seen, Subs
Also remember: If you take out a enemy's carriers first, your subs can deal with the battleships relatively safely. As a bonus, even if he has tons of bombers up in the air but you eliminate his naval bases (carriers), he has to fly them home if he can and is now severely limited on what he can effectively target with those (now land based) bombers. It is almost always a bad idea to use subs in naval combat before they've unloaded their nukes. Even if you don't lose a single sub in naval combat, having them ready at the right time at the right place is far better. Subs are slow and need maximum time to get into position. A quick tip about subs: being able to (effectively) unload them early means for the rest of the game they can be on patrol while the other guy (who previously was using them in combat) is now trying to sneak around in passive mode.
Being Defensive. Presumably when your on the run and have limited resources. First, nimble fleets can scatter and stretch the opposing players forces to thin to do serious damage. I.e., dividing your fleet in opposite directions to regroup later when safe. Never get in a position that doesn't allow two paths of escape. If necessary, bait a player one direction (thus sacrificing the unit) whilst your main fleet escapes. Defensive Naval Target Priorities:
- Bombers, if you ships are threatened
- Fighters, if your bombers are threatened
- *Subs, last because your priority is salvaging you own fleet at the moment
*Always keep track of last known position and movement of enemy subs. They are slow enough to be caught later in most cases.
Destroying Naval Units 101:
While a swarm of a thousand fighters can destroy a fleet of any size, it's better to retain your fighters to use against bombers later. Many a game have I wished I had just a couple of more fighters to fend off that last minute bomber attack. Instead:
- Use bombers against carriers/battleships in that order.
- Use battleships to screen out fighters, thus protecting your bombers who should ALWAYS stay behind your battleships. I.e., never send your bombers directly at an enemy ship thus breaching the "front line".
- As soon as you spot enemy bombers, scramble fighters to take them out, always manually targeting them to maximize the effect. One lone fighter can wreak havoc on a swarm of bombers if you do the targeting.
Torp wrote:Also, how is your bomber/fighter ratio during naval combats? That is, how many carriers do you use to send out bombers once the fleets clashes, and how many send out fighters?
I think this is a player preference, but the more bombers you scramble the better odds you have of destroying enemy fleets at the risk of losing them. As far as fighter go, as I said before, one lone fighter can wreak havoc on a swarm of bombers. If you are targeting manually and he is not, use the minimum amount necessary. One fighter can take out several bombers, so keep a steady stream of them going as opposed to a huge swarm up in the air. Having 50 fighters airborne against 5/10+ bombers and some ships is a complete waste. Also remember to keep your carriers in a position to be reloaded with fighters from your bases as much as possible.
Torp wrote:When nuking, I generally ignore air bases and silos. My primary targets are usually any forward radars, followed by cities. I might send off a nuke or two against airbases in my line of travel, if using bombers, because that will often up their survivability, and a silo that decides to fire its missiles while my bombers are inbound can expect to attract one or two as well, just to get a hit and remove five nukes (the logic not being "those nukes could hit me" but "those nukes could hit something and give him more points than I want him to have").
Here again you're off. There may be a bit of difference in land targeting amongst the "masters" but you don't have to hit many of the big cities to win. Most players leave the smaller/medium cities alone most all of the game focusing on the "big" points. If you can get there first, great! But don't get too caught up in that to miss out on other opportunities.
Land targeting 101: Assuming you've scouted and/or have the proper intel...
Why in this order? Assuming you've scouted and/or have the proper intel...Well first, if he can't see your inbound bombers, he can't take them out. Scrambled fighters have limited radar. Second, if he has no bases to scramble fighters, he can't take out your bombers at all. Third, if he has no silos, nuke him into oblivion!. I've proven to myself over and over that waiting till the second wave to hit his radar will cost more nukes than sending 6/8 missiles at a radar to begin with (against those who cluster silos).. *In cases like NY, Moscow, Sao Paulo where it's more likely to be a concentration of silos, you can target those cites if you get close enough first.
Remember, leaving that one/two silo/s he has left in order to nuke only cites will end up costing you more points than you want. Having ALL your nukes land vs having 80% because of a couple of silos is far better. Especially if you take note of the population in each city and target appropriately. It only takes 6 to nuke a city. With no silos in the way, you can more effectively proportion your strike so as not to waste nukes on one small city while not hitting another large one.
Lastly, I've made it my specialty to come back from the brink of defeat to winning/second place at the end of the game. There are usually enough cities left with enough population in most every game to come back from (even a negative score) and win with just the scraps. This of course doesn't work to well against other great players who generally don't defend their cities.
Disclaimer: The lists above are in precise order. Failing to use the proper order will result in decreased results.