I have yet to see anyone even use them. I haven't used them except when I played against the AI, when I first got this game. They only do 20 or 23 planetary damage, have weak shields and armor, and are quite pricey. It seems like you would have to devote too much resources to buy enough to make them useful. Even then, they are too easy to kill.
From what I have been reading, it seems like they had a pretty big nerf recently. I don't think making them expensive with a high fleet supply is a problem, but the way they are currently just doesn't seem to work. I would like to see them be more of a heavy planetary bomber that does more planetary damage and is quite a bit tougher than the current version. Only then, or by making them cheaper, can I see them being viable.
Any thoughts from you vets who know more than I?
P.S. I know there have been some discussions about sieges but I didn't see any directly talking about if they are useful for what they are intended to do, planetary bombardment. Hence, I made this posting.
Just using 2-3 Siege frigates to clean up behind you is viable, freeing up your caps to push on. This has been pointed out many times. I prefer using capitals as well because they are more multipurpose, but it is still cheaper and faster to get a couple of siege frigates in play than it is to get another capital ship.
Also, it doesn't happen much anymore, but every now and then when someone has completely undefended worlds and their fleet is busy, I have seen raids of siege frigs take out several planets...even wiping people out occasionally. It isn't a strategy I use for all the reasons people hate siege frigates, but it still works when someone is already losing and their worlds are undefended and you need to speed up the end of the game. That is what the point of the siege frigate is...to speed up the end of the game against undefended worlds.
That is why they aren't tougher and cheaper....they become too attractive a strategy to wipe out someone without even fighting their fleet.
Of course, this Horse has been beaten to death....and beaten some more for good measure.
I've heard it mentioned in this thread before, but I think the main problem with SF is their lack of flexibility vs their fleet supply cost. They don't do anything that can't be done better, or at least more effectively by other units (caps).
What I would propose is to do something along the lines of turning them into a capture frigate. Instead of seiging planets they could send troops to capture them. Along the same lines they could be used to capture structures as well. I mention structures because I don't think the majority of people would approve of having them capture the lvl 10 cap ship they spent all game getting there. It would give an alternative to clearing out gravity well by force, and provide another option for assaulting SB's. Personally I think it should be damn hard to get a fleet of said capture frigates past a SB's defenses, but if done it should have an effect worth the FS it cost to make them in the first place.
I realize it's not likely to happen as it would involve a re-code of the entire planetary takeover system, but I thought it would definitely increase their flexibility, and would give players another reason to buy them without doing anything to change their hps/survivability etc.
I wouldn't mind seeing something like a shield upgrade to be honest..... They don't have to be cheaper or more powerful... just last a lot longer when being hammered..... Like an old B-29 that could take thousands of rounds and still fly home with missing parts of tails and wings.... excellent survivability is all that really is needed... maybe the sieges frigates shields could extend in a radius from the ship. If those "extended range shields" could also stack with each other, you could have a single siege frigate not being worth a whole lot, but a committed expenditure would give the fleet enough overlapped shields stacking that the fleet could have a very good siege engine that ONLY does one job but does it exceedingly well. Also this means current hull/shield points would remain the same as they are now... (for normal shields)
The idea to add bombers/fighters isn't bad, but then you'd be making the seige frigate a cruiser.....But truthfully maybe that is what it should be....
The "super siege" frigate is exactly what they were trying to move away from so people didn't just build siege frigates and kill all your worlds while ignoring your fleet. This is why most people want cheap but flimsy siege frigates so they have an option specifically dedicated to killing worlds but not good at combat.
Ironclad has made the siege frigate as unattractive as possible because they want people fighting with other ships and not bypassing that stage of the game by going straight for the enemy worlds. It is available purely as an option to get some more world killing ships in play if you absolutely need them.
The majority of the gamers want drawn out, epic length games. The Siege frigate reached its current state because people cried in the forums when siege was powerful and could knock out worlds while being shot at by a defenders fleet.
Couldn't have said it better.
Then your point is taken, and there is absolutely no need to adjust the siege frigate at all.
I totally agree. Properly fortified systems would not be threatened. The question is how cheap would a siege frigate have to be to cripple your opponent before he has defenses up. You wouldn't have to get all the enemy worlds, just knock out a couple expansions and you have a big economic advantage.
I love entrenchment, but to be honest, it won't do a damn thing to stop siege frigates if they are buffed. Defense, even with entrenchment, simply isn't what this game is about. Why? Because you can simply go around defenses, and avoid them. The devs have made the active decision over and over again throughout the history of this game to always make it so that defenses are avoidable, even with entrenchment. Even the much-vaunted starbase doesn't have the range to "reach out and touch someone."
The only SB you can't "instantly" avoid is the space turnip, but I'd still bet my left testicle that with decent micro, you could split up 10 siege frigates all operating at different sides of the planet simultaneously, and take that planet out. Meanwhile the vasari SB can only engage 1 siege frigate at a time. With obscene micro, you could probably just run away with that siege frigate he is targeting. The other SBs? You might be able to defend an asteroid by sticking one on top of it, but that's it.
Starbases are a moot point anyway. You can't ring all planets with starbases, especially early game. You can't ever make enough turrets, even late game, to stop siege frigate spam. I fail to see how entrenchment changes anything.
At this point, I'll go ahead and start actively rooting for a siege frigate buff. You see, I know exactly what the result will be. Then it will just be a matter of breaking out the popcorn and watching the fireworks.
pretty sure hangar d and squadron hangar upgrades on SB's are the way you defend a whole grav well with stationary defense. there's no amount of micro in the world that saves a Siege Frig from fighter squadrons. seems like one hell of an oversight on your part, considering you've put your left testicle on the line.
the point of sb planet defense is up for disscussion in the Starbase Range forum and this has been bought up many times. the way(as it seems) to defend a grav well/planet is to build a sb, have hanger upgrades, and hanger d. but another way would be to put all of ur structures as close to the planet as possible, but that puts a major dent in the reason for sbs.
...Bet your right testicle too. It'll do us all a bit of good.
Sins community....protecting the gene pool since 2008.
You think you're gonna cover *ALL* your planets with these fancy expensive starbases, mines, and hangers? In the early stages of the game, no less? Perhaps you should put your testicles on the chopping block, too.
Ask Cykur how many starbases he builds in an average skilled game. Then ask him how many games he would expect to win in an average skilled game if he endeavored as a priority to ring every planet he owned with starbases, mines, hangers, etc. I don't know the answer to either of these questions, but if I'm betting in Vegas (testicles or no testicles), I'll bet 1) he doesn't build many SBs in an average skilled game, and 2) he wouldn't expect to win too many games spending all his resources covering all his planets with SBs, mines, hangers, etc.
If you think it would be anything approaching cost-effective, or even possible, to defend against siege frigate spam by ringing all of your planets with starbases, mines, hangers, etc. then perhaps you should ante-up your brain as well.
They could buff the seige unit to old stats, leave new cost. In addition, make them have AM, and it cost 1 AM per shot with extremely slow regen, which early game is just enough to kill 1 planet for 3-5 SF. It would scale with AM/siege dmg upgrades vs. the opponent upgrading defense and planet hp's would keep it about 1 planet kill, meaning with the high cost, massing them early on would be infeasible or hopelessly outnumbered by the opponents fleet, and late game they wouldn't just be able to pierce through everything and devastate planet after planet, but they would be useful and scale as the game went on by getting mroe of them+upgrades
Edit: I didn't think I would have to state this but for some this might not click right away: It also means you don't actually have to destroy the frigates to counter them, simply AM draining/disabling abilities would pretty much screw them, as would jumping past a system with a starbase, meaning they have no way to bypass one
I win most games without building a single one. Static defenses are more powerful than fleets and don't incur supply penalties, but static defenses can't move, so you go around crippling the other guy or blocking his expansion until you are strong enough to take out the Entrenched worlds.
Sometimes, however, when my team isn't doing well and a game starts to drag out, there are too many defenses for me to make headway, and I'm forced to start building starbases everywhere too. Once a game goes long enough, everyone kind of gets dragged down into trench warfare because starbases are very powerful for their cost. You need your full fleet on offense and you need the starbases to guard your borders from the enemy fleets. These games take forever.
I don't think there is much point to buffing siege if you are just going to give it another nerf to keep it semi useless. Siege is currently calibrated so massing them early game is not practical. You wouldn't have changed anything.
I agree, siege is weak. It probably could use a little love. I personally don't care too much. The good players LOVE it when they find an optimal strategy to wipe out people. If siege gets that effective again, it will re-enter the game as a viable strategy, just like it was back at launch. And the forums will fill up with "nerf siege" posts again.
The point is to give it a niche without making it a game breaking unit or even one you would mass, just supplement a fleet with.
The idea of it is to make siege frigates usable in combat via its tiny pelts (I didn't mention this before but ship to ship weps would cost no AM)since it wouldn't die fast and/or actively bomb a planet while the fleets are engaged instead of relegated into uselessness or to the point where you just mass them for victory since once a planet was wiped out by them it would take a quite substantial amount of time before they could do so again
I don't think anyone would whine about that
....it already has a niche...it is the one frigate that can bomb a planet, at less cost than a capital ship, but also less flexibility. I for one am not interested in totally changing the way the ship works. I have just been trying to explain why they aren't more powerful.
It currently does not fulfill that niche as others pointed out (the whole entire not surviving long enough to do what it was intended pretty much ever causing a high failure rate/extremely situational uses yet has a incredibly high cost), and when it does that niche is gamebreaking as others have pointed out
Obviosuly it needs some tweaking in its purpose.
Also, this obvious thing would be that as far as generalities go, it'd still be only ship cheaper than a cap that bombs planets if you want to get simple like that
Edit:I suppose I could make a mod to demonstrate it, with that being the only change, shouldn't be too hard to figure out star forge
I always find it funny when people use the word "obviously" when they are just stating their opinion and not something that is a fact.
You want the ship to be stronger..so do others. By all means, it could use a small buff...I really don't care, I was just explaining why it isn't stronger. I've been playing the game online since it came out a year ago. I have been both sides of the coin. If you make siege viable in combat as well as able to attack worlds, people will make tons of them...if you make them too cheap or too tough, people will rush you with them because they know they can get your world before you get the siege frigates. Originally they were both too cheap and too tough.
I am of the opinion they could be a little cheaper and use a bit less fleet supply, but also be much easier to kill. The whole design of the game is such that you have to deal with a players fleet and defenses before you destroy their worlds because it was deemed "not fun" for people who lost because their opponent rushed them with siege frigates.
this thread just keeps going in circles. its like people are forgetting the points that have already been made. i'm damn positive there was a whole discussion already about how the current version of sieges are so easy to kill that an undefeded grav well can beat back a gang of 4-5 siege frigs by spontaneously building one or two hangar defense and reinforcing in 4-5 light frigates. heck, even just keeping a handful of light frigates back on defense (about 25 fleet supply worth is all you need) can beat sieges.
the complaint was and is that their is no way to use siege frigates against anything except fully subdued opponents who cannot fight back. this makes them feel lame and useless. a unit so bad you laugh at your opponent for building them.
the nerfed state of the siege frig was to address a major flaw with a very old implementation of the game. alot has changed since 1.04 though. i honestly don't consider it a big problem in the game right now. the current balance works well enough. i do however think this particular ship is the most out of balance of all the basic frigates right now and a revision is long overdue.
You bring along a few of your own ships to guard them. I just played a game a couple weeks ago where one of my allies put about 10 siege frigs in one of his fleets and went on a rampage knocking out all 5 worlds his opponent held. I think he had a couple caps as well, and all combined he was knocking out the planets so fast and moving on to the next world that his opponent could not muster defenders or get his fleet back on defense fast enough to stop him. Siege frigates are crappy expensive ships, they aren't meant to be used unsupported, but in numbers they kill worlds quite handily. By all means buff them. Games take too long as it is....
so..... arnt we confusing the devs just alittle bit here?
first we all complained that they were crazy over powered and needed to be nerfed, because thats all someone needed to build inorder to win.
and now we want to buff them up because they are too weak?
now i agree, they are verry weak and really pointless by themselfs, but you shouldnt use them alone in the first place!
you need to clear the gravity well and then bring them in, or if its a lightly defended worldcant you just defend them with some frigs? (if there are fighters/bombers use a flack/anti fighter ship, if its turrets use some light frigs and just kill enough to where there is a hole to bring them in to bombard.) and as for mines? well i havent played entrenchment enough to really know how to counter them, (i havent had to deal with that much really) but i know there is a way, and it probalby involves frigs!
the main problem is that they arnt meant to be used alone at all, no ship really is. even though cap ships can be used that way in a pinch, they are better when used with support from frigs/cruisers/fighters/bombers.
and if there is a starbase in the gravity well, dont even try to use sieges against it, they ovbiously dont want you to have that planet, and are willing to spen the resources to protect it, but if you can still bombard it (ie bad placement of starbase and no fighters/bombers) they might not have the upgrade that alows them to keep the planet under their control,(especially if there arnt any other upgrades to the starbase) so its worth a shot.
so i think thats all i have to say for now, i didnt read all the posts so im sorry if i repeated stuff or left anything out, and im also sorry about my probalby dubois spelling
You are right, that is the complaint of the "buff siege frigates" camp. The key phrase you used is "fully subdued opponents who can't fight back." The point is, the "buff siege frigates" camp wants them usable against opponents who *AREN'T* fully subdued, and who *CAN* fight back. That is the critical, overriding point.
After buying this game the first day it was out, I left it for about a year. One of the reasons I left was siege frigates. The other reason was the PJI. My return to the forums (and the game) about a year later was heralded with the post "What's changed in a year?". Here is that post: https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/335490
In this post I asked whether or not siege frigates and PJIs had ever been changed. My prediction was "no and no," but I was quite pleasantly surprised to learn that they had been. That brought me back into the game after a year of not playing or visiting the forums, and I bought Entrenchment too.
When the siege frigate is rebuffed, I will leave the game again. Now, that's no loss to the community by any means, in fact some may even cheer. However, I'm just wondering how many people are out there like me. My guess is there are tons, because there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth before (I was there, I remember it), and the siege frigate was nerfed hard because of it. How many people will leave when it is re-buffed? Perhaps a more interesting question - how many people will stick around (unlike me - I won't) and cause a big stink on the forums for month after month?
To the "buff siege frigates" crowd, I'm calling you out, right now. Put your money where your mouth is. Post a big petition to the devs asking for a siege frigate buff. Sign your names on it. Get all your friends to do the same. Judging from the posts on this thread, you seemingly outnumber people like me by a pretty hefty margin. I'd say you have pretty good odds to get what you want. Come on, let's see it happen. Quit being PUSSIES. Yes, I'm saying it to your faces, you PUSSIES, and I'm spraying it while I'm saying it.
Now, what's my adenda in all of this? Well, I'll lose a game (again), but if it's one thing I really love in life, it's watching people get what they deserve. The other thing I love in life is saying "I told you so." I find that those two things go really well together.
So come on you *PUSSIES*, you huge, gaping, dripping wet cowardly *PUSSIES*. What are you waiting for? Quit complaining, and put your money where your mouth is. Either put up, or shut up. Wouldn't that be better than just continuing to complain?
now you're just making [even more of] a fool out fo yourself. look, this isn't about who's got a bigger internet pecker so i'm just gonna ignore the provocative language and go back to the thing we're actually debating, ok? i'm calling off the flame war, please don't escalate.
furthermore, petitioning the developers is not productive behavior. signature collecting threads are stupid. these forums aren't a representative sampling of the player community. we all ought to just communicate what we think as clearly as possible instead of trying to leverage some phony notion of majoritarianism to back our opinions.
what i want is a balanced game with as much strategic depth as possible. i don't think this is a controversial thing to ask for. why anyone should construe that desire as a desire to return to a previous state of imbalance is beyond me. nobody has ever made the case for that. why you (or anyone) should believe it is impossible to implement a more powerful but still well balanced version of Siege frigates is also beyond me. have you so little faith in the talents of the Ironclad developers, who have done so well with the rest of this game?
i see the following issues that might arise from stronger siege frigates:
1) it could disrupt the pacing and put an emphasis on rushing. this is undesirable, one of the appealing aspects of Sins is its pacing. this game has a very big, fun, and interactive mid-game and late-game. taking that way would be a mistake.
2) it might disrupt the strategic balance of fleets in an undesirable fashion, putting too much emphasis on siege counters (like Fighters and Light Frigates). this could cause "splash damage" on other things that are weak to those counters, which is a term i originally learned while playing another game that went through alot of balancing cycles. splash damage is where a change to one thing impacts the metagame environment in such a way that previously viable strategies become accidental casualties because of changes intended to address something else.
3) it increases the penalty of falling behind by making it easier for a player to finish his opponents off. recovery would be harder if planets died faster. less margin of error could be a turn off to players who take losses personally.
here are my solutions to the issues i have identified:
1) move the tech tier of siege frigates to tier 3 or tier 4 military research. this would completely remove the ability to rush with them. carriers are a very powerful counter to siege frigates, therefore it makes sense to me that the counter should be available at the same time or even before the siege frigs become available. imbalance occurs when a unit cannot be countered when its available. moving the tech tier solves this easily.
2) incremental changes to the damage, armor, hull/shield numbers of units could sufficiently mitigate splash damage effects on the metagame. this would require playtesting but probably doesn't require anything drastic to be done. in the early days it only took small changes the costs and movement speeds of Javelis and Assailants to balance them. this kind of incremental adjustment works very well for this kind of thing.
3) a) stop taking losses personally. losing is part of competition. learn from your losses.
b ) a change could be made to the "abandon planet" feature in the game that would allow it to recoup credits based on the amount of population abandoned. this way you could pre-emptively ditch a planet you knew you couldn't defend and use it to gain a quick injection of funds to try and build some defenders with. just a suggestion, i'm sure there are plenty of reasonable solutions.
in addition to those 3 specific issues i have identified and addressed i would like to see the general role of the siege frigate changed a bit. i think they would be more interesting and useful as economic warfare specialists as opposed to just specializing in killing planets outright. correspondingly, i would like to see population damage increased and planet health damage decreased. that way you could quickly kill off the tax base of a planet but would be unable to wipe it clean before defenders could arrive. sieges wouldn't be a severe game loss threat this way (capital ship bombardment should be the main technique for causing game losses) but would be a major economic development threat. this would add an interesting strategic layer to the game, in my opinion.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
