| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marhawkman
Space Emperor
Joined: Mar 24, 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think the brick of doom has many important strategic uses. 
Back to top |
|
 |
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marhawkman wrote: | | I think the brick of doom has many important strategic uses. |
Brick of Doom?
Um ...Warstream?
...Or just any form spaced at 3 x 3 or less?
Back to top |
|
|
marhawkman
Space Emperor
Joined: Mar 24, 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basically any close packed formation. It gives you much better PD coverage.
Back to top |
|
|
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can do.
Back to top |
|
|
gurachn
Space Emperor
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
Location: Osaka, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zwo_Dvoongar wrote: | Okay - got a question: What are you using?
... |
Been a while since I focused on formations (or even played a full game!) but I used to use mainly tight barricade.
Never used anything other than the tight formations actually.
I find that closer is almost always better.
Since I have been using the smaller shipsets, the issue of rising ships isn't a problem either, and even very tight formations are generally esthetically pleasing.
 SEV Visual Mods:
Black UI
Reduced Size Shipsets
Back to top |
|
|
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gurachn wrote: | | Zwo_Dvoongar wrote: | Okay - got a question: What are you using?
... |
Been a while since I focused on formations (or even played a full game!) but I used to use mainly tight barricade.
Never used anything other than the tight formations actually.
I find that closer is almost always better.
Since I have been using the smaller shipsets, the issue of rising ships isn't a problem either, and even very tight formations are generally esthetically pleasing. |
Thanks. I'm thinking 2 versions as a general rule then, with a few extra tight and extra loose down lower in the list.
Maybe I'm sweating the organization issue a little too much. Plenty of variety's probably the main thing. I plan to include the "lazy" all-core forms somewhere as well. Something like that could get addictive.
Back to top |
|
|
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, here's the MASTER PLAN 
The categories aren't intended for debate; I'm just figuring to put the best forms where they'll be convenient, at the top.
Also including some fairly loose forms because - you never know - someone may have a use for them sometime.
------------------------------------
Primaries
------------------------------------
Flying V. 6 x 6 . 9 x 7 . 12 x 10 . 11 x 13
Happy Lander 5 x 7 8 x 8 11 x 11
Scoop II . 6 x 6 . 10 x 8 . 12 x 9
Barricade 5 x 5 9 x 7 12 x 10
Curl 8 x 5 11 x 7 13 x 11
Wall. 7 x 6 . 9 x 9 . 11 x 8 . 13 x 13
Gap Trap 8 x 6 10 x 7 12 x 10
Angle . 7 x 5 . 11 x 7 . 12 x 12
Pincer 5 x 5 8 x 7 10 x 8 11 x 11
War Stream. 6 x 6 . 8 x 8 . 11 x 11 . 14 x 13
Artillery 7 x 6 10 x 8 13 x 13
Scoop . 7 x 6 . 9 x 9 . 13 x 11
------------------------
Lazy Forms - All Core
Hi Capacity
------------------------
Lazy V 7 x 7 10 x 8 13 x 10
Lazy Arrowhead . 5 x 5 . 9 x 6 . 12 x 9 . 14 x 14
Lazy Wall 6 x 6 10 x 8 14 x 11
Lazy Pincer . 7 x 6 . 9 x 8 . 12 x 10
------------------------------------
Secondaries
------------------------------------
Echelon Ships 7 x 7 10 x 8 11 x 10
Trailing Slash . 8 x 7 . 11 x 9
Lopside 7 x 7 11 x 10 15 x 13
Thrust . 6 x 6 . 11 x 11 . 12 x 9 . 13 x 13
Cluster 5 x 5 8 x 6 11 x 8
Bull . 7 x 6 . 9 x 7 . 11 x 11
Dome 6 x 6 10 x 8 12 x 10
Trapper . 6 x 8 . 8 x 9 . 11 x 9 . 13 x 13
Ghost 6 x 6 10 x 7 11 x 10
Fighting M . 7 x 6 . 11 x 8 . 15 x 15
Haystack 8 x 8 10 x 9 13 x 10
Tomahawk . 7 x 5 . 8 x 8 . 10 x 7 . 12 x 10
Twin I 8 x 7 10 x 10 14 x 11
------------------------------------
Ultra-tights (a few repeats found elsewhere at proper size)
------------------------------------
Pyramid . 3 x 3
Pincer 1 x 1 4 x 3
Flying V . 2 x 2
Bullet 2 x 4 4 x 4
War Stream . 1 x 1 . 3 x 3
Fighting M 2 x 2 4 x 3
------------------------------------
Weaklings
------------------------------------
Bubbles . 7 x 6 . 9 x 9 . 13 x 11
Pyramid 6 x 6 9 x 7 11 x 11
Stalks . 6 x 6 . 8 x 8 . 12 x 10
T Formation 7 x 5 9 x 6 11 x 8
Shell . 8 x 5 . 9 x 9 . 13 x 11
I Formation 7 x 6 10 x 10 14 x 14
Shields . 7 x 5 . 8 x 8 . 11 x 11
Bullet . 6 x 6 . 7 x 9 . 12 x 12 . 15 x 15
Diamond 8 x 5 7 x 7 10 x 10
Lattice . 8 x 8 . 9 x 7 . 11 x 11
Arrowhead 7 x 5 8 x 8 11 x 7 14 x 13
Whale Tail . 7 x 6 . 9 x 9 . 14 x 11
Triangles 8 x 6 10 x 10
Line Ahead . 6 x 6 . 9 x 8 . 11 x 10 . 14 x 12
Breaking W 8 x 5 10 x 7 12 x 9
-------------------------------------------
That's it. I suppose I can add a few words about the newest forms
Happy Lander - simple line with escorts and pickets directly in front
Bubbles - 4 groups around the middle, 360 protection, but with more emphasis to the front
Thrust - Massive off-center group out ahead of the leader
Line Ahead - For very long range bombardment, to keep core in range after leader makes his turn. Otherwise weak
Lopside - Asymmetrical and unbalanced, a less risky gambit than Tomahawk
Trapper - Attempts to lure enemy in front of main group using two pickets as bait. Should perform adequately even with no bait in position.
Ghost - Two heavy groups just off-center and slanted enough to hopefully throw off the enemy's approach.
-------------------------
So anyhow, complaints, comments, or suggestions? Now's the time!
(list revised)
Last edited by Zwo_Dvoongar on Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top |
|
|
ForesterSOF
Space Emperor
Joined: Jun 23, 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the choices.
Back to top |
|
|
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gurachn wrote: | | Zwo_Dvoongar wrote: | Okay - got a question: What are you using?
... |
Been a while since I focused on formations (or even played a full game!) but I used to use mainly tight barricade. |
Sorry- got distracted by the rest of the post and forgot about this part. Moving Barricade up near top of list. 5 x 5 tight enough, or would you prefer an ultra-tight?
| gurachn wrote: |
Never used anything other than the tight formations actually.
I find that closer is almost always better.
Since I have been using the smaller shipsets, the issue of rising ships isn't a problem either, and even very tight formations are generally esthetically pleasing. |
I must approve of your research. Small sets seem like the best way to go.
Back to top |
|
|
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, it'll probably be a while yet. I'm pretty much burnt out on staring at text for hours on end.
Red Alert mod did me in.
http://www.spaceempires.net/ftopict-9403.html
I'm sure I'll get back to the formations in time. It's too cool a project to drop.
Back to top |
|
|
gurachn
Space Emperor
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
Location: Osaka, Japan
|
|
|
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gurachn wrote: | | Zwo_Dvoongar wrote: | ... 5 x 5 tight enough, or would you prefer an ultra-tight?
|
Maybe 3x3? |
Okay: adding Barricade 3 x 3 to the ultra's.
Now a question for the general population:
How tight to go with the AI formations?
While players will have a nice array from which to choose, the AI is stuck using the standard set. I'm thinking of giving them a variety package: one or two at 5 x 5, one or two up around 14, most around 8 x 6. Sound cool?
(This is for the basic set. Giving the AI a whole lot of variety is what's to follow in the "Yellow Alert" package. Gotta start somewhere.)
Back to top |
|
|
Zwo_Dvoongar
Space Emperor
Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a short precautionary note: I managed to break a game by changing formation files mid-game. I got tired of using the "test set" for that game and replaced it. This resulted in turns refusing to process. Reverting to the dopey "test set" file fixed it.
My advice: don't change form files mid-game. I think I got away with it in the past, but it's risky.
Back to top |
|
|
|
Files & Links
SEnet Content
User Content
SE.net Info
- Syndicate forums: