Armor is for Losers - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Armor is for Losers

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Armor is for Losers

Khan Singh posted 04-24-99 03:50 PM ET
"I don't want you to die for your country. I want you to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-----G. Patton
"Attack, attack, attack!"-----C. O'Connor

Okay, the title "Armor is for Losers" is a bit of a hyperbola. But, as many people in these forums have argued before, the Smac game system rewards the offensive. Personally, I think this is the right design decision. If the defense were any stronger, games would just end up in continuous stalemates. But a lot of people have convincingly argued that armor is too weak, and I'd be interested to learn how many still think this is the case.
Whether it is the correct design decision or not, the weakness of armor relative to weapons basically decides which tactics work and which don't. If you wait around for the enemy to attack your bases, he will eventually kill your defenders and take the base, even one with a perimeter defense. Trading a base for four or five attackers is simply unacceptable.
But if you attack the enemy units as the move adjacent you can, with a couple of Offensive Defenders, hold off the enemy indefinately. Armor loses, Attacking wins, even on the defense.
Since you don't ever use the armor you put on units, why put it on in the first place? The cost of armor is far better spent building part of another attacker. It would defend better, AND attack better. And if you lose it to enemy attack, another one will soon take its place.
I am ignoring a number of factors in this analysis, but I think it remains basically sound, even with version 3. Are there any special circumstances where it does not hold?
Plato90s posted 04-24-99 05:33 PM ET
You want to make sure your units are not too vulnerable to a counterattack. There are certain units which don't require armor such as artillery and air superiority units. However, if you have an elite infantry unit, I'd prefer to let it have a chance at surviving.
Consider this scenario. After you develop advanced weapons, lower tech weapons can be added to defensive units at no cost. A 1-4-2 silksteel garrison costs the same as a 4-4-2 silksteel sentinel once you develop fusion laser.
If your attack units are 10-1-2 Fusion squads, they are hideously vulnerable to being destroyed by that 4-4-2 silksteel sentinel. But if you attack units are 10-4-2 Fusion Shock Troops, the defensive unit will have a hard time counterattacking.
evil_conquerer posted 04-24-99 09:17 PM ET
Your strategy falls apart if the enemy has faster units than you have. If they're using rovers, you'd better make your "offensive defense" units rovers or better. Otherwise you don't get a chance to attack. If you're behind in tech, they might have hovertanks while you still have rovers, or gravships while you still have hovertanks.
Krickett posted 04-24-99 11:29 PM ET
Having armour weaker than weapons makes a lot of sense. There are more bonuses for defense than offense (perimeter, tachyon, rocky, fungus, base, sensor... get my drift?)
Empath posted 04-25-99 08:56 AM ET
There are a few problems with an active defense (units with no/low armor).
1) Air units are going to tear up your troops. Even interceptors can destroy a low armor unit.
2) You have to be faster than your enemy, or you will just trade losses. Yes, your other infantry can destroy that scout, but not until after it has already killed your first infantry. Remember that a unit holding a bunker or city has a speed of 0.
3) Cloaking units will make your life miserable.
On the other hand, your army will be a lot cheaper. The computer does not use active defense a lot, so it should be good if you can stay on the attack.
Interesting thing to consider... have you thought about fast big gun popcorn troops backed up by fast clean AAA units with heavy armor?
presence posted 04-25-99 11:23 AM ET
Armor isn't weak... if you're willing to put enough work into it.
I've found that even bases in the most hostile areas can be completely defended by two units, using the best armor available based on your current technology. The first unit is a garrison or squad with ECM and hypnotic trance. This gives good protection against ground and psi units. The other unit is a AAA garrison.
The other part of the defense is good infrastructure. A command center, aerospace complex, tachyon field, and perimeter defense will make these units extremely strong. Put a sensor nearby and they're nearly indestructible.
This strategy is very resource intensive, and doesn't do a thing to protect nearby terraforming. This usually isn't a problem for me, since my bases most in need of good defense were usually the result of my military conquest - so I already have strong offensive units in place.
Khan Singh posted 04-25-99 04:19 PM ET
I find that aircraft can, more often than not, destroy land units even if they are armored. The proper way to defeat air units is with interceptors. Armor does help against air attacks, but not enough to make it worthwhile. You need interceptors when you are on the offensive anyway, so armor as a defense against air attack remains redundant. Sams are a better investment, I think.
I admit that armor can be formidable with heavy investment in defenses. But I think that you are better off investing those resources in attacking units, except in the case of "chokepoint" bases.
Armor might also be more valuable to Free Marketeers, who want the smallest number of high quality troops. But even then the idea is never to use your defensive rating if you can avoid it. But sometimes you just can't avoid defending and with a lot of money upgrading is a negligable expense.
Plato90s posted 04-25-99 05:58 PM ET
While it's true that a Penetrator will probably destroy a ground unit, it's not as true for Interceptors [ie SAM-armed aircraft]. Interceptors take a 50% penalty when making a ground strike.
If a Fusion Interceptor tries to attack a 10-1-2 infantry, it'll probably win [10 - 50% = 5 vs. 1].
But if the same aircraft tries a strike against a 10-5-2 infantry, it's just as likely for the aircraft to be destroyed.
PrinceBimz posted 04-26-99 04:26 AM ET
I find defensive units useful to protect the outskirts of my bases. To keep enemy units from moving in and destroying my enhancements. I also use heavily armed AAA naval escorts to protect my transports. I even find a need for wanting armor on my air units at times.
Tin Man posted 04-26-99 08:53 AM ET
There is anothing thing to note about the different types of armour and weapons.
The weapons come in different types, specifically Energy and Projectile.
The armours defend against different types of attack. Synthmetal defends against Projectiles only, Plasma Steel defends against both, Silksteel and Photowall defend against Energy only, Probability against both, etc. (Check the Appendix or ALPHA.txt)
So, putting stronger armour on a unit may not always be the best option, dephending on the weapons the enemy have.
Plato90s posted 04-26-99 10:27 AM ET
Actually, the different weapon/armor types were taken out. Too complicated.
If you read alpha.txt, you'd see that there are still vestiges of that old system in there, but several vital aspects have been taken out. All armor interact with all weapons in the same mode, even though there are multiple available modes.
Tin Man posted 04-26-99 10:57 AM ET
How do you know this ?
If I look back at alpha.txt from the original (without patches) will I find anything there ? or did it not make it into the original CD release ?
On the general subject, I agree that in general, one-to-one combat, the stronger weapons outways the stronger armour.
Better reactors allow the units to take more damage (assuming that's still in the game), and this makes alot of difference.
However, stronger armour might allow you to survive a couple of attacks, and if you're in a city with a Command Centre, or near a Monolith, the unit can be fully repaired before the next wave of assaults.
It would take a large attack, of multiple units in a turn to destroy the defenders before they can repair, and if this was the case, having strong offensive defenders probably wouldn't help as you might not destroy enough of the attackers.
The exception to this is Choppers, since they can make several attacks in one turn, a strong chopper can eliminate many defenders (or attackers) in a single turn.
DilithiumDad posted 04-26-99 11:06 AM ET
It's true that armor is mostly a waste except for garrison units. It is also good to stack an amored unit with your attackers --cheaper than adding armor to an attacker.
I do think the game is unbalanced in favor of attack. More defensive tech and secret projects should be added in the expansion disk.
Morganstern posted 04-26-99 05:27 PM ET
Khan Singh's strategy may work in the early to mid game phase (50-150 years in). Before and after that, there's very little reason not to go with the best armor available. Early on, attacking units will rarely fare better or worse just because you have a higher armor rating, unless they're significantly more advanced than you. Later on, I've tried to downgrade armor on garrison units, only to find that it takes as many turns to build them anyway! In those rare cases with some differentiation, the energy credits to hurry production are negligible.

Plato90s posted 04-26-99 08:15 PM ET
Well, you can still see the various armor and weapon types in the alpha.txt file and there are actually different sound files for each of the 3 types of weapons. However, SMAC only uses one of the sound files, and there is no apparent bonus in combat.
jhankla posted 04-26-99 09:32 PM ET
My hovertank is decked out in the same red armor as the picture of the raving horde you get when you first capture a city. Seems to offset most attacks and hey, you're a tank afterall! Makes me wish the AI took into account the differences in MASS when I go against YANG's synthmetal sentries in the open and paint a red smear where you squeshed their bug asses down the road on the way to the HIVE!!! Armor has it's place! Some stop and smell the roses, I may stop, but only to bust their boreholes! LOVE ARMOR!!!
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Armor is for Losers
Khan Singh	posted 04-24-99 03:50 PM ET "I don't want you to die for your country. I want you to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-----G. Patton "Attack, attack, attack!"-----C. O'Connor Okay, the title "Armor is for Losers" is a bit of a hyperbola. But, as many people in these forums have argued before, the Smac game system rewards the offensive. Personally, I think this is the right design decision. If the defense were any stronger, games would just end up in continuous stalemates. But a lot of people have convincingly argued that armor is too weak, and I'd be interested to learn how many still think this is the case. Whether it is the correct design decision or not, the weakness of armor relative to weapons basically decides which tactics work and which don't. If you wait around for the enemy to attack your bases, he will eventually kill your defenders and take the base, even one with a perimeter defense. Trading a base for four or five attackers is simply unacceptable. But if you attack the enemy units as the move adjacent you can, with a couple of Offensive Defenders, hold off the enemy indefinately. Armor loses, Attacking wins, even on the defense. Since you don't ever use the armor you put on units, why put it on in the first place? The cost of armor is far better spent building part of another attacker. It would defend better, AND attack better. And if you lose it to enemy attack, another one will soon take its place. I am ignoring a number of factors in this analysis, but I think it remains basically sound, even with version 3. Are there any special circumstances where it does not hold?
Plato90s	posted 04-24-99 05:33 PM ET You want to make sure your units are not too vulnerable to a counterattack. There are certain units which don't require armor such as artillery and air superiority units. However, if you have an elite infantry unit, I'd prefer to let it have a chance at surviving. Consider this scenario. After you develop advanced weapons, lower tech weapons can be added to defensive units at no cost. A 1-4-2 silksteel garrison costs the same as a 4-4-2 silksteel sentinel once you develop fusion laser. If your attack units are 10-1-2 Fusion squads, they are hideously vulnerable to being destroyed by that 4-4-2 silksteel sentinel. But if you attack units are 10-4-2 Fusion Shock Troops, the defensive unit will have a hard time counterattacking.
evil_conquerer	posted 04-24-99 09:17 PM ET Your strategy falls apart if the enemy has faster units than you have. If they're using rovers, you'd better make your "offensive defense" units rovers or better. Otherwise you don't get a chance to attack. If you're behind in tech, they might have hovertanks while you still have rovers, or gravships while you still have hovertanks.
Krickett	posted 04-24-99 11:29 PM ET Having armour weaker than weapons makes a lot of sense. There are more bonuses for defense than offense (perimeter, tachyon, rocky, fungus, base, sensor... get my drift?)
Empath	posted 04-25-99 08:56 AM ET There are a few problems with an active defense (units with no/low armor). 1) Air units are going to tear up your troops. Even interceptors can destroy a low armor unit. 2) You have to be faster than your enemy, or you will just trade losses. Yes, your other infantry can destroy that scout, but not until after it has already killed your first infantry. Remember that a unit holding a bunker or city has a speed of 0. 3) Cloaking units will make your life miserable. On the other hand, your army will be a lot cheaper. The computer does not use active defense a lot, so it should be good if you can stay on the attack. Interesting thing to consider... have you thought about fast big gun popcorn troops backed up by fast clean AAA units with heavy armor?
presence	posted 04-25-99 11:23 AM ET Armor isn't weak... if you're willing to put enough work into it. I've found that even bases in the most hostile areas can be completely defended by two units, using the best armor available based on your current technology. The first unit is a garrison or squad with ECM and hypnotic trance. This gives good protection against ground and psi units. The other unit is a AAA garrison. The other part of the defense is good infrastructure. A command center, aerospace complex, tachyon field, and perimeter defense will make these units extremely strong. Put a sensor nearby and they're nearly indestructible. This strategy is very resource intensive, and doesn't do a thing to protect nearby terraforming. This usually isn't a problem for me, since my bases most in need of good defense were usually the result of my military conquest - so I already have strong offensive units in place.
Khan Singh	posted 04-25-99 04:19 PM ET I find that aircraft can, more often than not, destroy land units even if they are armored. The proper way to defeat air units is with interceptors. Armor does help against air attacks, but not enough to make it worthwhile. You need interceptors when you are on the offensive anyway, so armor as a defense against air attack remains redundant. Sams are a better investment, I think. I admit that armor can be formidable with heavy investment in defenses. But I think that you are better off investing those resources in attacking units, except in the case of "chokepoint" bases. Armor might also be more valuable to Free Marketeers, who want the smallest number of high quality troops. But even then the idea is never to use your defensive rating if you can avoid it. But sometimes you just can't avoid defending and with a lot of money upgrading is a negligable expense.
Plato90s	posted 04-25-99 05:58 PM ET While it's true that a Penetrator will probably destroy a ground unit, it's not as true for Interceptors [ie SAM-armed aircraft]. Interceptors take a 50% penalty when making a ground strike. If a Fusion Interceptor tries to attack a 10-1-2 infantry, it'll probably win [10 - 50% = 5 vs. 1]. But if the same aircraft tries a strike against a 10-5-2 infantry, it's just as likely for the aircraft to be destroyed.
PrinceBimz	posted 04-26-99 04:26 AM ET I find defensive units useful to protect the outskirts of my bases. To keep enemy units from moving in and destroying my enhancements. I also use heavily armed AAA naval escorts to protect my transports. I even find a need for wanting armor on my air units at times.
Tin Man	posted 04-26-99 08:53 AM ET There is anothing thing to note about the different types of armour and weapons. The weapons come in different types, specifically Energy and Projectile. The armours defend against different types of attack. Synthmetal defends against Projectiles only, Plasma Steel defends against both, Silksteel and Photowall defend against Energy only, Probability against both, etc. (Check the Appendix or ALPHA.txt) So, putting stronger armour on a unit may not always be the best option, dephending on the weapons the enemy have.
Plato90s	posted 04-26-99 10:27 AM ET Actually, the different weapon/armor types were taken out. Too complicated. If you read alpha.txt, you'd see that there are still vestiges of that old system in there, but several vital aspects have been taken out. All armor interact with all weapons in the same mode, even though there are multiple available modes.
Tin Man	posted 04-26-99 10:57 AM ET How do you know this ? If I look back at alpha.txt from the original (without patches) will I find anything there ? or did it not make it into the original CD release ? On the general subject, I agree that in general, one-to-one combat, the stronger weapons outways the stronger armour. Better reactors allow the units to take more damage (assuming that's still in the game), and this makes alot of difference. However, stronger armour might allow you to survive a couple of attacks, and if you're in a city with a Command Centre, or near a Monolith, the unit can be fully repaired before the next wave of assaults. It would take a large attack, of multiple units in a turn to destroy the defenders before they can repair, and if this was the case, having strong offensive defenders probably wouldn't help as you might not destroy enough of the attackers. The exception to this is Choppers, since they can make several attacks in one turn, a strong chopper can eliminate many defenders (or attackers) in a single turn.
DilithiumDad	posted 04-26-99 11:06 AM ET It's true that armor is mostly a waste except for garrison units. It is also good to stack an amored unit with your attackers --cheaper than adding armor to an attacker. I do think the game is unbalanced in favor of attack. More defensive tech and secret projects should be added in the expansion disk.
Morganstern	posted 04-26-99 05:27 PM ET Khan Singh's strategy may work in the early to mid game phase (50-150 years in). Before and after that, there's very little reason not to go with the best armor available. Early on, attacking units will rarely fare better or worse just because you have a higher armor rating, unless they're significantly more advanced than you. Later on, I've tried to downgrade armor on garrison units, only to find that it takes as many turns to build them anyway! In those rare cases with some differentiation, the energy credits to hurry production are negligible.
Plato90s	posted 04-26-99 08:15 PM ET Well, you can still see the various armor and weapon types in the alpha.txt file and there are actually different sound files for each of the 3 types of weapons. However, SMAC only uses one of the sound files, and there is no apparent bonus in combat.
jhankla	posted 04-26-99 09:32 PM ET My hovertank is decked out in the same red armor as the picture of the raving horde you get when you first capture a city. Seems to offset most attacks and hey, you're a tank afterall! Makes me wish the AI took into account the differences in MASS when I go against YANG's synthmetal sentries in the open and paint a red smear where you squeshed their bug asses down the road on the way to the HIVE!!! Armor has it's place! Some stop and smell the roses, I may stop, but only to bust their boreholes! LOVE ARMOR!!!