Starting Fed strat - late building of mining

posted on September 21st, 2010, 10:38 am

When watching the recent final between Clintsat and Butters I was amazed to see both players delay construction of their mining in order to get their shipyards and Engineering up first.  While I can see a potential benefit if you are really worried about very early raiding or wanting your first ships a few seconds earlier but otherwise I would have thought the delay to resources would be felt quite hard within a few minutes.

I did some quick maths and came up with the following.  Neither a standard Fed BO or the one witnessed results in a faster SFC.  No way to start building SFC earlier than 160 seconds (and this assumes no delay due to positioning constructors).

Mining and Shipyard first results in you being able to construct sabres soon (40 seconds) but having wait for Engineering (another 70 seconds) plus research time for chassis one (45 seconds) so 155 seconds to start with Monsoons/Intrepids.  Mining starts at 50 seconds possibly even with first load being unloaded due to first miner mining while storage dock is under construction.

Mining and Engineering first gives same as above for first mining but delays first sabre construction possible to 90 seconds but first Monsoon/Intrepid can be at 115 seconds.

And now the interesting late mining start...

Firs mining possible at 90 seconds.  That's a 40 second delay over the previous.  It should be noted that unless going for the rare double mining station start strategy all the noted strats get second mining at the same time.  First Sabre possible at 40 seconds.  First Monsoon/Intrepid is possible at 115 seconds.

The critical path to Monsoons/Intrepids for all scenarios is 70s (Engineering) + 45s (Chassis 1).  Only the shipyard/mining strategy is less efficient in terms of getting Chassis 1 ships out, still good for Sabre spam though.

So, all this strat seems to do is slow down mining without any real benefit over other more orthodox BOs. 

So, what am i missing?  Why did two of the best FO players choose this strategy for the final?

posted on September 21st, 2010, 2:31 pm

They get warp ins faster than usual early warp in strategy, and a chance if they have scouted the enemy warp in facility location to destroy the constructor while it is building the enemy warp in facility if oponent is going early warp in. Then opponent has to cancel the warp in facility and can even loose one constructor. That means that your oponent cant ekspand because he has to use the second constructor to build the warp in facility. In the meanwhile you can even ekspand and start regular ship production. The downfall of this strategy is that you are weaker at economy and depend on luck what will you get for your first warp in. You will also probably loose one of your warp in ships unless you get really nice ships. Note that they build only 3 miners at start, not 4. Maybe thats the thing you missed. Because with 4 miners warp in will not be avaliable that fast. And also they build dilithium rafinery first, but first 2 miners built collect tritanium and are already prepared to deposit it in the dilithium moon rafinery once it is finished. Although in the long run against very good players this strategy is not so good. Early warp in is maybe even better, but you can get your opponent quite nervous because you denied him his warp in facility at start.

posted on September 21st, 2010, 2:36 pm

In addition to what Little Timmy said, which is in my opinion correct...

... because like most players, people think that the earlier you get a warp in (earliest time to receive the ships is 250 seconds I believe) the stronger you'll be. It's not necessarily correct logic and it doesn't play out if you test it against other strategies. For instance, an Intrepid Start with double yards will more than match the loss of going for that super fast warp in.

Online gameplay relies very much on trend setting - you see very few strategies being employed in general, because people go with the herd. So as soon as someone wins with a strategy, other people follow right along side and use the same strategy, no matter the downsides.

posted on September 21st, 2010, 3:09 pm

a nice double yard with later warpin would have probably won that match.

i love double yarding

posted on September 21st, 2010, 3:47 pm

a nice double yard with later warpin would have probably won that match.

i love double yarding

Hey, thats my strat >:(  you can't have it


works like a charm though.  i think its actually better with mayson too because you can always build norways and novas in addition to monsoons or whatever.

posted on September 21st, 2010, 6:58 pm

Ok, i think i missed out on factoring in Starfleet Science, but looking at the BOs i considered you are still waiting in all scenarios for Starfleet Engineering to be built anyway.

Assuming then that my maths were wrong and a faster SFC is possible, then the question, or maybe now its a point, is that this tactic can result in a quick finish to the game but with a decent risk (especially against a good opponent) that you will get burned badly and loose the game yourself.

In the game we witnessed both players used the same strategy so neither was ahead or behind when compared with the other.

I'm now curious, how other races would stand up to this strategy.

posted on September 21st, 2010, 7:01 pm

u can build yard and [abbr=starfleet engineering]se[/abbr] at same time. then dil mining + [abbr=starfleet science]ss[/abbr] then sfc and tri mining.

if u go for se and mining then u have to do yard, then ss, which takes long.

if u go for mining and yard first u can go for the two science buildings at same time.

posted on September 21st, 2010, 7:18 pm

Other factions do just fine against it - it's not a very strong 1v1 strategy at all, and all other 1v1 strategies end up with the same or more units in less time, making it easy to force the Fed player to do a last ditch attack. Plus, the Fed player can't get up a turret without sacrificing production even more 

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 1:10 am

Online gameplay relies very much on trend setting - you see very few strategies being employed in general, because people go with the herd. So as soon as someone wins with a strategy, other people follow right along side and use the same strategy, no matter the downsides.

Does this mean that if I went back online, and won a few games with one of my random goofy experiment strategies, a bunch of people would try to do that crap?

'Wow, look at all those starbases!'

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 4:52 am

LOL... if it works I guess so, especially if someone recorded it so people could see your crazy strat in action.

Let the starbase building trend commence!

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 4:36 pm

well in team games if all players pitch in for a klingon starbase its pretty good. its main weapon is either beam or torp, but the torp dont miss so its awesome. the rom/fed main bases have pulses, which do reduced damage to larger ships i believe.

a klink station can secure a choke point, but playing on such maps where this works would be boring.

maybe on asteroid halma if two players were klink and fed and they put large amounts of money in, a starbase in the middle at the start would work.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 8:52 pm

maybe on asteroid halma if two players were klink and fed and they put large amounts of money in, a starbase in the middle at the start would work.

Sadly that does work - only too well. That's why I don't like playing on that map when people demand to do top versus bottom 

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 1:33 am

I like using Borg Assim Matrix as a turret.  Yes, that's a 2000d/1000t turret.  But that's a bad-ass turret.  Especially if you spend more to upgrade it.  What else are you gonna do while waiting for enough connections to build that cube?

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 9:17 am

Sadly that does work - only too well. That's why I don't like playing on that map when people demand to do top versus bottom 

i like the map cos its simple and fun to play.

when i play klinks i dont do the starbase in the middle strat, and nobody else does.

it works, but its sooooo boring.

I like using Borg Assim Matrix as a turret.  Yes, that's a 2000d/1000t turret.  But that's a bad-ass turret.  Especially if you spend more to upgrade it.  What else are you gonna do while waiting for enough connections to build that cube?

i'd build transmission matrix. maybe recycling centre (if im opti) and some incubators too.

that way i would have loads of supply to throw at my allies to keep them going with loads of late game ships. also i have res from recycling centre. on maps with little resources u can give money to your allies to increase their production.

oh and a few probes for harassment if money is good.

i dont build turrets late game, this is fleet operations, and turrets dont cut the mustard.

i only use turrets to stop or delay early harassment. after that a good player can ignore or kill a turret.

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 10:03 am

By the time I'm making Assim Matrix as turrets, I've already got scads of those, usually a spare Conduction matrix as well (just in case of a successful raid) and a spare constructor hiding in a nebula...once again, just in case.  Then I put the 'mega turrets' in the most irksome places I possibly can.  Usually in pairs positioned so it's hard to engage one without the other firing on you as well.

Once you're stuck waiting on connections to build up enough to make useful ships, may as well screw with your opponent's ability to freely move fleets around by putting long-range, high offense/defense 'turrets' with two kinds of no-miss torps and a nasty beam in unfortunate locations.  Like directly in the way of an optimal repair path.