Just a point, but this is a pet peeve of mine (and probably irrelevant); I'm sure psugar would agree:

A crescendo is not a climax; one doesn't build towards it in the way you mean. The crescendo is itself that build-up. The crescendo is the movement towards the climax.

Terribly sorry to bother with such irrelevancies... but I can't read them without prejudices...

To be entirely honest, I don't think that, regardless of whether or not the siege fleet can be stopped, the strategy is really viable. In mediaeval times, would you have tried to swamp you're opponents with trebuchets? In the American Civil War, would you have tried to swamp the other side with only cannons? Today, would you attack the enemy's home base with a whole lot of artillery, or even howitzers, and nothing else?
If you answered yes, then you belong in run-of-the-mill RTS's.
If you answered no, think about why. I can think of a couple:
1) Your units would be useless against things like cavalry/light tanks etc.
2) Regarding the expense of siege units (a trebuchet is extremely difficult to make, apparently; artillery and cannon are expensive), you wouldn't do a charge with them, even to take out the enemy home base.
3) You can't really take anything on except structures (here, planets) and tight troop concentrations, though if one is going for the home base then this doesn't really go to the detriment of the force.

The AI ignores all three of these points (though from the sound of it it doesn't really care about the third). Is it then behaving rationally? No. Why not? Probably because the statistics of these weapons are not in the character of siege units, and don't stop the AI from using them rationally.

In my opinion, that's good enough reason for a nerf BUT i think Schod's right in that we should wait at least a week to see whether these three reasons are actually enough to come up with a solution to the problem that doesn't require an arcane formula. THEN we should complain.

Sorry about the length

Why are you guys comparing the Krosov and its analogs to artillery? Its a heavily armored (from the description) unit -- its designed to compliment the primary assault by taking out the planet while you suppress defenses.

And while it might -- might -- be overpowered, try to remember that fixing its being OP shouldn't involve changing its role (for all you who want it to be paper-thin and easily killed). As things stand, you can force the enemy to choose between killing your combat units, or killing your sieges, and that is a lovely choice to make them make

Apologies for inconsistency between my argument and the game's siege frigates - I haven't played it and am going by the assumption that the siege frigate is analogous to present-day arty. (Obviously...)
In my opinion though, if it's so heavily armoured that the AI can use it in a rush, then it's missing the point that

I'd be much happier if it were lightly armoured and complimented the primary assault than heavily armoured and could spam successfully.

Even apart from that, shouldn't it be a bit more expensive if the armour isn't going to change? Because there is clearly a problem with the AI understanding the philosophy of what a siege unit is if it just spams them. I don't think it's a valid strategy.

It is expensive -- thats the point people have been trying to make. Truth be told, I have no clue how the AI is pulling it off.

I have an idea...why don't the people who disagree played against the people who agreed on the issue that the siege frigate are overpowered. I mean one side team up against the other using the same AI tactic and see if the other side can counter. No AI players or anything, and this once and for all can settle the issue. Oh why you guys are at it, make sure to record the entire game play. I am sure actual tried and true playing beats see saw arguing back and forth against each other.

I think that a much better solution (and I think it was mentioned a while earlier, but this thread is growing unwieldy) would be to allow Flak frigates and Fighters to intercept and shoot down the slow moving nukes. This would give fighters a more useful role and give the flak frigates a use outside of killing bombers then sitting around trying not to get killed. It's both somewhat realistic and gives a good limit to the siege frigs power, while not nerfing them. It would also force you to actually move in and suppress/destroy the defenses rather than just ignore them.

I don't really know if it's possible from a programming point of view, though.

I don't think you quite understand what Schod's point is; he says that we should wait a bit longer before calling a nerf. By "everyone needing a bit of experience", he meant that we should play the game a bit longer, himself included, seeing that it's only been out a couple of days. Beta experience doesn't come into it because (apparently) there was no siege frigate strategy that the AI used.
That's his point. Everyone, stay calm; the game hasn't been out yet, we need more experience. Am I right, Schod?

So read a bit more carefully before you go calling someone names. Half the trouble on this forum comes because people don't read properly.

Enjoy the game if and when you get it (if you haven't got it already )!

Hell yes. Who's up for it? Imagine the title and description: "The Treaty of Algeron: Never will there be another siege weapon, under fear of instant [insert doomsday weapon here]-ization by all other space-nations. In addition, the Federation should not invent a cloaking device. Thank you."
Or something simpler?

As an RTS, I'm not entirely sure that that would be viable - but yes, I agree about the multiple victory idea.

precisely.

dont you just love how I said it repeatedly, over and over and over and yet nobody listens?

*Write everything down for a future silly mod*
This is made of pure genius I say, pure genius!!!

Hmm a lovecraftian mod anyone? I would be up for helping out with that.