Base Obliteration discussion (gameplay effects)

[Yitzi]

Since it came up in the other thread, I figured I'd mention my understanding of how the possibility of base obliteration affects the game.  I'll be treating 2-player games (this includes 2 players plus largely inconsequential AIs, and to some extent even a 4-player game with a separate 2-player challenge match inside it) and multiplayer (by which I mean more than 2) games separately, as the effects are very different.

2-player games:
These games are special because they are zero-sum: Whatever one of the players gains in terms of chance of victory, the other loses.  Thus, sacrificing a small amount of your resources to destroy a substantially larger amount of the other person's is worthwhile.  Base obliteration therefore becomes a strong way to do large amounts of damage despite being unable to hold conquered bases; this in turn favors tactics built around highly mobile forces to concentrate your forces and take a base (even losing multiple times as much as the defenders), such as using chop&drop against a base with AAA defenders. 
Thus, by making "raids" more important in comparison to conquest (due to the ability to destroy an enemy base), it increases the importance of mobility even when it comes at the cost of unit efficiency, which of course makes air power a lot more powerful.

Furthermore, because the enemy can obliterate his own base to deny it to you, protracted sieges are an unfeasible way of conquering bases, meaning that if your aim is conquest, often the only workable strategy is to use high-attack speeders to try to take the base in one turn rather than to use a mix of offensive and defensive infantry to whittle down the base's defenders over several turns.  This of course increases the importance of offense as compared to defense.

Multiplayer games:
The above considerations still apply, though to a substantially lesser extent (since destroying an enemy base is worth a lot less when his loss does not equally mean your gain.) 

In a multiplayer game, though, there's another consideration as well: Momentum factions are relying on their ability to conquer territory (to make up for not building what they have as much.)  Thus, their targets' ability to obliterate bases rather than see them captured essentially cripples momentum factions, as they are usually unable to even have a chance of conquering enough to keep up with the builders.

Thus, base obliteration favors builder factions beelining to Doctrine:Air Power and using the mobility of needlejets and later choppers to take and destroy enemy bases, a strategy that by all accounts does seem to be overpowered.  Now, there are definitely numerous other factors that contribute to this problem (most notably the ease of getting air power and the high speed of choppers), but I think that base obliteration does seem to be a substantial component.

[Kilkakon]

An interesting tactic, thanks for sharing.

[Yitzi]

An interesting tactic, thanks for sharing.

I'm more interested in what effect the tactic has, and whether it would require banning in order to get a good game.

[Kilkakon]

I've never seen it used before myself, but then again I haven't played SMAX multiplayer before (only LE) where there's nobody on my skill level (which is to say, intermeditate at best).

[Kirov]

As I see it, the main problem is that you write about 'raids' as if it was some very easy strategy. It's not, in my experience. Sending just one unit and doing the rest of the job with air power doesn't count as a raid for me, it's more of invasion (you don't obliterate a base then, you pour your air into it). If you can't keep the ground, you can destroy it, but it's not that abusive because you do try to keep the ground.

A proper 'raid' is one or more transport vessels with several assault units onboard. Such activities are actually quite risky. You need to plan the outfit of such transports (without infiltration it's quite hard), you need to build it (and not build air units), then send it, probably using fungus as a hiding place. If at any moment your party is spotted, it's gonna be killed quickly and efficiently - the enemy loses at worst one needlejet/cheap foil to destroy a destroy full with good infantry. And in my opinion if he doesn't scout his borders and patrol for such intruders, he deserves to be punished in this way.

I've sent several raiding parties in my life and it's no piece of cake. Oft it failed, it worked usually when I saw that I was already considerably better than the other guy. Basically if you allow the enemy to do stuff like that it's your mistake and you should pay. For the attacker, it's definitely high risk scenario, why not give high reward. I wouldn't even try it against a good player unless I infiltrated him and can clearly see a hole in his defence.

Obliterating my own base - I don't know, I'm not that experienced at MP but I don't see many situations when it's useful. I could obliterate a small base to prevent infiltration, which is a valid approach in my book. The other reason is to deny the enemy launch pads for his air power, but he has already brought his own colony pod with him, so what's the point. And if my base falls, I can still infilitrate it, download techs and then mind control back for cheap. I don't see much point in the scorched earth strategy. If you obliterate your base to deny your enemy a healing place for his army or something like that, then things are going downhill for you anyway.

[Yitzi]

As I see it, the main problem is that you write about 'raids' as if it was some very easy strategy. It's not, in my experience. Sending just one unit and doing the rest of the job with air power doesn't count as a raid for me, it's more of invasion (you don't obliterate a base then, you pour your air into it). If you can't keep the ground, you can destroy it, but it's not that abusive because you do try to keep the ground.

Why do you try to keep the ground, instead of just using air power to attack, capture, and destroy wherever the enemy hasn't concentrated their forces?

Furthermore, if you need to keep the ground (something that air power is horrible at), so you have to bring in ground units anyway (and so can't use air power's mobility advantage to its fullest extent) then why is air power considered so powerful?  Just because you need the Air Superiority ability to attack it?

Obliterating my own base - I don't know, I'm not that experienced at MP but I don't see many situations when it's useful. I could obliterate a small base to prevent infiltration, which is a valid approach in my book. The other reason is to deny the enemy launch pads for his air power, but he has already brought his own colony pod with him, so what's the point. And if my base falls, I can still infilitrate it, download techs and then mind control back for cheap. I don't see much point in the scorched earth strategy. If you obliterate your base to deny your enemy a healing place for his army or something like that, then things are going downhill for you anyway.

The main reasons I would see are:
A. To get a reputation as "the guy who's not worth invading in a many-player game because he'll destroy his bases rather than let you take them."
B. If you are fairly evenly matched, but can't get the bulk of your units there in time, to destroy the base so he can't use it against you and you don't have to take it back (which can be hard if he's got enough probe teams that mind control isn't a feasible option, or is running Fundie.)

[Kirov]

Why do you try to keep the ground, instead of just using air power to attack, capture, and destroy wherever the enemy hasn't concentrated their forces?

Furthermore, if you need to keep the ground (something that air power is horrible at), so you have to bring in ground units anyway (and so can't use air power's mobility advantage to its fullest extent) then why is air power considered so powerful?  Just because you need the Air Superiority ability to attack it?

The main reasons I would see are:
A. To get a reputation as "the guy who's not worth invading in a many-player game because he'll destroy his bases rather than let you take them."
B. If you are fairly evenly matched, but can't get the bulk of your units there in time, to destroy the base so he can't use it against you and you don't have to take it back (which can be hard if he's got enough probe teams that mind control isn't a feasible option, or is running Fundie.)

Such issues must be discussed with some anchor in practice, otherwise there's little point in doing it. I haven't played for a while and my current games are yet to unfold, but let me recall the most standard and basic type of games I was in (let's say it's HtH for convenience's sake):

- both players expand
- one is getting stronger
- this stronger guy prepares an invasion: assault units (mostly air), probe teams, garrison (airborne)
- with his stronger military, he closes in with a colony pod within 8 tiles from the nearest enemy's base
- he builds a base and pours in all/most his units inside
- next turn, he attacks that nearest base, makes a drop with drop pod units, moves in with his air power and probe teams (if required)
- he continues the slaughter
- the enemy surrenders soon

Of course the details may vary in a hundred ways, but this is how I defeated several different opponents in MP situations. As you can see in this scenario:

- by 'keeping ground' I meant 'hold what you conquered and push forward as much as you can'
- you always need ground units to capture bases, but since you can do that with drop units (and later on the enemy's territory, with scout rovers using his own roads), this is not a big hindrance to air power
- you're not going in to benefit from his bases; in the standard conquest, they are used as airbases and healing centres for ground folk
- at first, conquered bases are useless; they riot so much they need to be starved down; by the time they get useful, the war is won by either party
- the info that you 'destroy your bases' is not at all a deterrent to me; I just need to bring two colony pods to make sure my air power has continuity of movement
- I want to come to fight you when I'm already stronger (like in this Sun Tzu quote, I try to win first and then go to war); therefore, any damage to your bases only increases my advantage
- and let's say I'm weaker (and desperate because you're getting stronger); even then I'm happy to weaken you down; either way, it's not your bases which I'm after, it's your jugular
- I would only be interested in taking/obliterating a base with a good Secret Project; but this is not something that warrants rule changes; and let's say I go for the HSA and there is danger that you obliterate it; please, go ahead and do just that; whether I take it or not, I'm still happy you lost it
- last but not least, air power is very good at 'keeping ground', or for that matter, at anything that is related to 'killing enemy units'; basically, with their movement, cheap attack, invulnerability to ground attacks and ZoC (with needles) they are the ultimate 'terminator' units. Whenever situation calls for killing, bring these.


EDIT: typo

[Yitzi]

Such issues must be discussed with some anchor in practice, otherwise there's little point in doing it. I haven't played for a while and my current games are yet to unfold, but let me recall the most standard and basic type of games I was in (let's say it's HtH for convenience's sake):

- both players expand
- one is getting stronger
- this stronger guy prepares an invasion: assault units (mostly air), probe teams, garrison (airborne)
- with his stronger military, he closes in with a colony pod within 8 tiles from the nearest enemy's base
- he builds a base and pours in all/most his units inside
- next turn, he attacks that nearest base, makes a drop with drop pod units, moves in with his air power and probe teams (if required)
- he continues the slaughter
- the enemy surrenders soon

1. Why can't one of the players attack with a similar method even without a military lead, simply attacking where the other guy has fewer troops than the entirety of the first guy's forces?
2. I presume that that method would be substantially less effective if AAA were free for defensive units and AAA units were common on the defender's side (as then if the assault units are mostly air he'll probably end up with losing more than he destroys)?

- the info that you 'destroy your bases' is not at all a deterrent to me; I just need to bring two colony pods to make sure my air power has continuity of movement

That's true in a H2H game, where the only goal of taking over someone else is to destroy them.  With more players, it gets more complicated.

- and let's say I'm weaker (and desperate because you're getting stronger); even then I'm happy to weaken you down; either way, it's not your bases which I'm after, it's your jugular

How's that work?  Why wouldn't you be interested in weakening someone by wrecking their bases if you can't do more?

- last but not least, air power is very good at 'keeping ground', or for that matter, at anything that is related to 'killing enemy units'; basically, with their movement, cheap attack, invulnerability to ground attacks and ZoC (with needles) they are the ultimate 'terminator' units. Whenever situation calls for killing, bring these.

-They're good at keeping ground by destroying invaders, if the enemy has no AAA units in the stack (and they can't use nerve gas for whatever reason).
-Their movement is of highly limited use except in the case of choppers attacking low-defense units, as that's the only case where it practically gives more than one attack per turn.  It does mean they can go out further, but again AAA units+no nerve gas stops that method.
-They are actually roughly as expensive as rovers with the same attack.
-Needlejets being invulnerable to ground attacks and having no ZoC only works if the enemy didn't bring SAM units.

Of course, that's still pretty impressive, but nothing that can't be reduced with a few tech tree changes, a cut to chopper movement and AAA cost, and reasons not to use nerve gas.  Base obliteration might still be a concern then, though it might be best to first try a game with all the appropriate changes and see what comes up and go from there.

[Kirov]

1. Why can't one of the players attack with a similar method even without a military lead, simply attacking where the other guy has fewer troops than the entirety of the first guy's forces?

I'm not saying he can't; it's just the opponents I mentioned didn't. It's probably initiative. Once you see the other guy is getting stronger and stronger on the chart, you can either launch a desperate attack or start to prepare your defences. I guess they went for the latter, which is a more obvious choice.

That's true in a H2H game, where the only goal of taking over someone else is to destroy them.  With more players, it gets more complicated.

Of course, but this doesn't change one key feature of SMAC - on most maps you fight in order to win, not to expand. Especially if it's midgame and you have EnvEcon: simply raise some terrain and cram in some bases there. When you attack the enemy, you want to kill, not to take their land or women. So with base obliteration, they do your job for you. If you're that desperate for land, simply bring some colony pods.

[Yitzi]

I'm not saying he can't; it's just the opponents I mentioned didn't. It's probably initiative. Once you see the other guy is getting stronger and stronger on the chart, you can either launch a desperate attack or start to prepare your defences. I guess they went for the latter, which is a more obvious choice.

Why wait until they're getting stronger, and why must the attack be desperate?  Why couldn't you make an attack of that sort when you're both about even, relying on the destruction of enemy bases to make them lose more than you do?  (Nerve gas makes it even worse, as even if you don't manage to take the base, you might destroy it or at least lower its population by a huge amount; it's almost like a cheaper earlier-in-the-tech-tree gene warfare.)

Of course, but this doesn't change one key feature of SMAC - on most maps you fight in order to win, not to expand.

If you're playing Spartans or Believers (or even Usurpers), it could easily be more cost-effective to steal someone else's highly developed base than to build and develop your own.  And if they have a project, that's even more true (conquering project-bearing bases might turn out to be the only way the Spartans and Believers can maintain parity when it comes to projects.)

When you attack the enemy, you want to kill, not to take their land or women.

What about their population and improvements?

[Kirov]

Why wait until they're getting stronger, and why must the attack be desperate?  Why couldn't you make an attack of that sort when you're both about even, relying on the destruction of enemy bases to make them lose more than you do? 

Well, this question is so general and theoretical that I find it hard to answer. The most truthful one would be: "it depends on the situation". Or to try to be more specific: 1) preparing an attack takes time, so if you want to catch your enemy before he runs away on the chart, it is going to be desperate (i.e. you don't have time to build forces you'd want to, maybe you make cuts in probe teams or SAM); 2) attacking when you're even doesn't strike me like the best idea in the world, simply coz you're at 50/50 (less if he's a better player than you). It's best to fight when you're stronger, if you're not - you're probably going to desperate.

What about their population and improvements?

You simply need to recall your last invasion on the AI. Remember how there's loads of drones and drone-related facilities probably got destroyed during the capturing, so you need to make doctors out of almost all citizens, but there's not enough food and the base starves by more than half? Well, that's what happens to me at least. And remember how after a (longer) while the base gets back to normal, but its energy output is ridiculous low because it's like 20 tiles away from your base and is killed by inefficiency? Yep, that's right. All in all, conquered bases will very rarely contribute a significant input to your empire.

[Yitzi]

Or to try to be more specific: 1) preparing an attack takes time, so if you want to catch your enemy before he runs away on the chart, it is going to be desperate (i.e. you don't have time to build forces you'd want to, maybe you make cuts in probe teams or SAM)

Why does it take a lot of time to get 5 needlejets, a colony pod, and a drop unit, and just hit where he doesn't have the forces to defend against that?

2) attacking when you're even doesn't strike me like the best idea in the world, simply coz you're at 50/50 (less if he's a better player than you).

No...as the attacker using high-mobility troops, you'd be able to use your entire attack force against one base, whereas he has to spread out his forces (or else you'll just attack where he didn't concentrate them), giving you a lot better than 50/50.

You simply need to recall your last invasion on the AI. Remember how there's loads of drones and drone-related facilities probably got destroyed during the capturing

Firstly, there aren't that many extra drones; on Transcend for a large base, you might get a total of 4.  And I think only one facility is destroyed during the capturing, so even if that's a rec commons (most likely scenario), that's only 6 extra drones; for a large base with all the psych-boosting improvements, that means you'd need maybe 3 extra doctors, 2 once you rush buy that rec commons back.

And remember how after a (longer) while the base gets back to normal, but its energy output is ridiculous low because it's like 20 tiles away from your base and is killed by inefficiency?

Firstly, if you're playing a seriously militaristic faction, there's a good chance that minerals are more important to you than energy anyway.  Secondly, your first conquest is probably going to be someone who was unlucky in the starting placement and ended up very close to you.  Thirdly, even if that's not the case, once you have a large enough empire you can run Green (and Democratic if you're not Yang or Maar) for the efficiency boost and deal with the problem that way.  Worst comes to worst, you can use specialists, which are not affected by inefficiency, to get use out of that base.

[JarlWolf]

Slash and burn tactics only work if you got amicable defences in your normal base and a way to strike at the enemy or cut off their supplies. Its all based on attrition and the mobility of your forces or their durability. So say your killing your bases off, its only going to be effective if you have some way to strike down the enemy, for example air power or rovers. (or foils if its on the water.)

Personally I'd only slash and burn if I knew the base was in inhospitable territory, or had large mineral deposits that the enemy could use. Because all that matters for conquered based, until they properly assimilate that is, is mineral output for your forces and what has been stated, as a healing dock for your units.

[Yitzi]

Personally I'd only slash and burn if I knew the base was in inhospitable territory, or had large mineral deposits that the enemy could use. Because all that matters for conquered based, until they properly assimilate that is, is mineral output for your forces and what has been stated, as a healing dock for your units.

1. If the Spartans are attacking you early in the game, presumably it's because they want your bases for the bulk of the game, or maybe a project.

2. Conquest drones are annoying, but aren't really that much.  They could plausibly be dealt with, though it would of course reduce the value of the base somewhat for a few decades...but if you're only halfway through a 3- or 4-century game, the base could still be useful long-term.

3. Another way that you can make use of a base right after capturing it is if it was yours first and they haven't assimilated it yet.  Thus, you might want to obliterate bases that you took but can't keep, or even take enemy bases purely for that purpose.

[Kirov]

Why does it take a lot of time to get 5 needlejets, a colony pod, and a drop unit, and just hit where he doesn't have the forces to defend against that?

No...as the attacker using high-mobility troops, you'd be able to use your entire attack force against one base, whereas he has to spread out his forces (or else you'll just attack where he didn't concentrate them), giving you a lot better than 50/50.

How do you know where he is weak? Have you infiltrated him? If so, I recommend you assume that he's infiltrated you as well and sees your concentration of forces.

We probably just have different maps and empires in mind. Some your concerns could be relevant for huge maps, empires spanning three continents etc. I use tight spacing, and one of the reasons is that it's easier to defend. If it takes max 2 turns to fly over my faction with needlejets, then surprises are really not that devastating - unless of course you come with stronger forces anyway.

Firstly, there aren't that many extra drones; on Transcend for a large base, you might get a total of 4.  And I think only one facility is destroyed during the capturing, so even if that's a rec commons (most likely scenario), that's only 6 extra drones; for a large base with all the psych-boosting improvements, that means you'd need maybe 3 extra doctors, 2 once you rush buy that rec commons back.

We really need to practice this habit of checking things.  I just checked and destroyed 3 facilities in one base and 4 in another. This matches my experience that 1-4 facilities get demolished.

But my main point remains that I haven't seen experienced players abusing the base obliteration thing. If it was that good, they'd have probably noticed it.