Oh, it's only my second game, so I'm sure I do have build order issues. So, because I'm not very good at the game yet, the AI uses only one tactic 90% of the time? That isn't really a way to encourage new players.

I've had the AI engage me when they couldn't win so I don't see your point

Straight from the retail manual, P.47:

"Krosov Siege Frigate"
Primary Role: Planetary Bombardment

Why can this event put a dent in a capital ship. t's primary role is Planetary Bombardment. Now I might be off my rocker in my logical thinking here...but why is something that's designed for planetary bombardment as it's primary role, able to withstand extended fire from and take down even 1 capital ship or a whole fleet for that matter? Artillery is NEVER on the front line. Nor should it be able to withstand punishment as such.

I did not I was reffering to prevoius posts talking about how much damage the seige frigates can take. The other comment was also in reference to a previous poster stating that he had lost some capital ships to siege frigates, which should not happen.

oh quit the tired and jaded sarcasm, I'm saying you need to wait more than a few nanoseconds before you chew someone's head off about something you do not understand.

I'm not saying I understand the game more than you do, what I'm saying is that NONE of us understand enough to start barking up random trees because we arent INSTANTLY pleasured by how the AI just drops and rolls over to our every whim.

perhaps I can see a drop in health, but still you shouldnt lose a cap ship to frigs. thats a matter of, *cough* uncouth usage of a powerful ship.

once again the collective flight towards arrogance is unsurprising.

I dont give a damn about how I play, if I lost every game to the AI for all of the betas, lost to every player I stumbled over, lost to MYSELF when playing alone in an empty solar system I would still say that you guys need to get some experience before you start whining about this and that.

I am irrelevant to this conversation, the fact that I like me, like really like me has got nothing to do with anything. so take a chill pill and at least win a game before you start whining to everyone about how you keep losing to the AI because the strategy the AI uses is cheap, and it has nothing to do with lack of experience on the community's part.

Ok, I'm really tick off, all this strategy talking has too much of an elitist attitude. To those people are saying left and right how other strategy is flaw and failure, let me remind you a few things that you seem to be DISRESPECTFULLY forget toward other players (and I'm specifically address you Scynix):


- Sins is a 4x game, in which people are freely (and encouraged) to play in various styles and approach, and if the game is good, should has a decree of success as long as they follow a principle of common and basic logic. This is NOT your Dawn Of War or Companies of Heroes whether you turtle, you're screw, or your Starcraft whether if you don't follow a specific tactic or pattern, you're screw. This is a 4X Sandbox game.


- If the player leaves his planet undefended, he's deserved to be screw. If the player sucks at economy and don't have enough ships, he's deserved to be screw. But if the player is prepared, has an overwhelming advantage in fire power, yet his planet is still under a death warrant from a lesser fleet, then it's not the player's fault that he's screw. But it's the fundamental flaw with the system itself.


- If your playing style allows you to by pass this flaw then good for you. But that doesn't mean we can just ignore such flaw because it unrightfully compromises other playing styles. I'm not an aggressive player but neither a passive player, for the most part I expand pretty quickly and re-enforce things as I go, I actually never got my homeplanet underattack. But when any of my planets got nuke to death when they're attacked by a fleet that only hold a fraction of fire power comparing to the fleet that is protecting it, I'm as pissed as anyone. I don't care how it work or doesn't work, I don't care what is it consequence, fact is something illogical that's not supposed to happen, happened in my game and I'm not pleased.


I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say not all of us buy the game to play online, or to play small battle, or big battle or whatsoever, after all that IS one of the main drawing point of 4X games, to do what you like and expect result as long as you are logical, and the siege frigate rush is NOT logical. Look, it's a problem that exists since Beta 2 and afford was made to correct it although doesn't seem enough. It's recognized widely by large number of players and acknowledged by the developers themselves, it's a VALID concern and we're discussing a right way to improve it. If it's not your concern, that's all fine and good, but do be considerate before you arrogantly start criticizing other player's style about how they should play THEIR 4X game:

This is a repost for the people on page 4 who apparently didn't READ page 3. This is for you guy who just thought I was being rude.

This seems pretty simple to me. First, reduce the HP or shields or armor. Make them easy to kill, like a trebuchet crew in Medieval Total War II. The trebuchet dominates structures, but is garbage in a fight.

So, to those who don't want your very expensive siege fleet to die in the blink of an eye, I say reduce their cost. Bam. Problem solved. You get some actual combat around the planet to take control of the gravity well and then send in the siege ships. If you just rush with them, they get annihilated but your economy isn't completely wrecked. Its that simple.

are you kidding me? where did he say that at all? he said everything to the absolute CONTRARY! watson!

/puts his head in his hands
ok fine, since its what makes all of us happy I'm abandoning this thread. I have faith that the devs will wait to make any appropriate nerfs instead of jumping to conclusions based on a few virgin testamonies. if they make a nerf after getting enough data thats fine by me. until then I'm outta here.

*pops his head back into the thread*

doesnt help when you're referencing page three, look at the post above you

*gone for good*

He's saying, as I stated, that my quote is from page 3. You are some how arguing with an EARLIER post versus a LATER post.

*rubs head* I can see why you're leaving Schod. Some people just won't read.