- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 1,696
- Reaction score
- 1,199
I wanted to title this treatment "The Best Defense" because it is based on what really works, not what should work from a perspective of min-maxing trying to plan for every eventuality. I went to a more technical description to prevent pointless bickering over semantics about whether disposability is in fact a defense at all in the context of things like armor and ion effects. Within the game as it is currently though, it is my firm conviction that disposability IS by far the best defense possible in 90% of situations.
FACT 1: Regardless of defenses, a smaller, cheaper dedicated (ie without extraneous systems or armor beyond the essential to distract from all energy being focused on one task) long-range missile ship able to get in range can cripple or kill almost any heavy warship with a very few shots, should countermeasures (PD/AMS) fail, and countermeasures can be overwhelmed or bypassed in a calculated manner.
FACT 2: Real world military ships - modern, top-of-line vessels - are quite literally designed to be disposable and replacable. They rely on range, speed, and area control (air superiority, sea superiority) to eliminate threats before they can be hit, and ECM, EW & SAM suites to prevent enemy munitions from ever reaching them when something does manage to get through because the reality is that often a single shot can sink even a heavily armored warship. Modern warships and armor - DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums
CONCLUSION: Our situation in Starmade is NOT dissimilar. Adding more than light armor & shields means direct cost, PLUS target size increase, speed decrease, additional power demands, additional support system costs (jump, overdrive, jamming), and at the end of the day, a dedicated long-range missile ship can still deliver a few shots that will wreck even very large warships, if ECM & Point defenses fail. Yes, fast ships with cannons are not stopped by PD, but they can be stopped themselves by missile volleys, making long-range and fast fire the best defense against them as well, not 5-layer armor and 20M shield bubbles. Just kill them before they can range in instead of defending against them at vastly greater expense and far less reliability.
STRATEGY: Disposable hardware.
Starmade players often dump days and even weeks into building ships, only to have them wrecked by someone clever. The standard response is to cry foul and often rage quit. This is natural - the commanders of many defeated armies in reality do the same thing, right before putting the barrel of a gun in their mouths. Understandable, but incapable of resulting in victory.
The commanders of victorious armies have learned that hardware and troops are resources to be spent (though not squandered). Expect to lose them, but only do so when their loss purchases something of strategic significance.
We do not put combat troops in the field in head-to-toe, heavy bulletproof armor. We equip them with excellent offense and attempt to give them maximum mobility and assume that there with be losses. Modern warships are not armored at all for the most part, and those that are are not actually relying on their armor to protect them while they blindly face down enemies. There are no "tanks" in the real world - not even actual armored vehicles because a single well-placed RPG or IED will end them. They are armored against small arms only.
The winning defense in Starmade is also about disposability.
If player A builds a warship with heavy armor, shields, and effect systems in addition to substantial offense, and player B uses the same value worth of resources to build 3-5 dedicated attack ships with only the lightest physical defenses but sufficient point defense & thrust, not only will the B ships be faster, more agile, and better at delivering damage, but when they defeat the heavily defended A ship, the result will be a 100% loss for A, and a fractional loss for B. Even should the resources committed to battle be uneven and the B fleet lose, because of disposability, 1-2 ships can be left to lose the fight while intact ships are extracted. A disposable defense can moderate a loss. Disposable ships do not drain coffers so deeply, and are more Quickly replaced as well, so commanders can continue to effectively fight a war even after losing a battle (or 3), whether through error or as part of a strategy.
Losing one battle with a ship that has the resources of several world's poured into it, typically means many hours or even days of lost resources and a slow and difficult comeback... if the massive loss doesn't cause the defeated commander to digitally sepuku by rage quitting the sever altogether. The vastly greater resource loss would be acceptable if it made ships more survivable, but we know it does not. Tricks and tactics can overcome the most most heavily defended ships. The only decision is whether fielding x-DPS worth of firepower should involve risking the minimum of resources, or 5 times that amount to bring to bear the same threat against an enemy.
[MORE TO COME - I JUST LOST THE REST OF THIS POST TO AN UN-ANNOUNCED, TIMED LOGOUT ON A MOBILE DEVICE AND MY THUMBS CAN'T BEAR TO REPEAT AT THE MOMENT]
FACT 1: Regardless of defenses, a smaller, cheaper dedicated (ie without extraneous systems or armor beyond the essential to distract from all energy being focused on one task) long-range missile ship able to get in range can cripple or kill almost any heavy warship with a very few shots, should countermeasures (PD/AMS) fail, and countermeasures can be overwhelmed or bypassed in a calculated manner.
FACT 2: Real world military ships - modern, top-of-line vessels - are quite literally designed to be disposable and replacable. They rely on range, speed, and area control (air superiority, sea superiority) to eliminate threats before they can be hit, and ECM, EW & SAM suites to prevent enemy munitions from ever reaching them when something does manage to get through because the reality is that often a single shot can sink even a heavily armored warship. Modern warships and armor - DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums
CONCLUSION: Our situation in Starmade is NOT dissimilar. Adding more than light armor & shields means direct cost, PLUS target size increase, speed decrease, additional power demands, additional support system costs (jump, overdrive, jamming), and at the end of the day, a dedicated long-range missile ship can still deliver a few shots that will wreck even very large warships, if ECM & Point defenses fail. Yes, fast ships with cannons are not stopped by PD, but they can be stopped themselves by missile volleys, making long-range and fast fire the best defense against them as well, not 5-layer armor and 20M shield bubbles. Just kill them before they can range in instead of defending against them at vastly greater expense and far less reliability.
STRATEGY: Disposable hardware.
Starmade players often dump days and even weeks into building ships, only to have them wrecked by someone clever. The standard response is to cry foul and often rage quit. This is natural - the commanders of many defeated armies in reality do the same thing, right before putting the barrel of a gun in their mouths. Understandable, but incapable of resulting in victory.
The commanders of victorious armies have learned that hardware and troops are resources to be spent (though not squandered). Expect to lose them, but only do so when their loss purchases something of strategic significance.
We do not put combat troops in the field in head-to-toe, heavy bulletproof armor. We equip them with excellent offense and attempt to give them maximum mobility and assume that there with be losses. Modern warships are not armored at all for the most part, and those that are are not actually relying on their armor to protect them while they blindly face down enemies. There are no "tanks" in the real world - not even actual armored vehicles because a single well-placed RPG or IED will end them. They are armored against small arms only.
The winning defense in Starmade is also about disposability.
If player A builds a warship with heavy armor, shields, and effect systems in addition to substantial offense, and player B uses the same value worth of resources to build 3-5 dedicated attack ships with only the lightest physical defenses but sufficient point defense & thrust, not only will the B ships be faster, more agile, and better at delivering damage, but when they defeat the heavily defended A ship, the result will be a 100% loss for A, and a fractional loss for B. Even should the resources committed to battle be uneven and the B fleet lose, because of disposability, 1-2 ships can be left to lose the fight while intact ships are extracted. A disposable defense can moderate a loss. Disposable ships do not drain coffers so deeply, and are more Quickly replaced as well, so commanders can continue to effectively fight a war even after losing a battle (or 3), whether through error or as part of a strategy.
Losing one battle with a ship that has the resources of several world's poured into it, typically means many hours or even days of lost resources and a slow and difficult comeback... if the massive loss doesn't cause the defeated commander to digitally sepuku by rage quitting the sever altogether. The vastly greater resource loss would be acceptable if it made ships more survivable, but we know it does not. Tricks and tactics can overcome the most most heavily defended ships. The only decision is whether fielding x-DPS worth of firepower should involve risking the minimum of resources, or 5 times that amount to bring to bear the same threat against an enemy.
[MORE TO COME - I JUST LOST THE REST OF THIS POST TO AN UN-ANNOUNCED, TIMED LOGOUT ON A MOBILE DEVICE AND MY THUMBS CAN'T BEAR TO REPEAT AT THE MOMENT]
Last edited:
