Comments on Pax Imperia II
Beta
>I just picked up a copy of Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain (published 1997) very
>cheaply secondhand. Of the other games of this type, I have played MOO,
>MOO2 and Stars.
>
>Here are some comments I have:
>
<snip>
>
>* The biggest problem I have with this game is a distinct advantage of fixed
>defenses over starships. In most other games it is possible to assemble
>vast, almost unstoppable, fleets and then go rampaging through the galaxy.
>In this game ships are very expensive to maintain. One full fleet (21
>ships) is the about the most even a wealthy civilization could afford. On
>the other hand, fixed defenses for planets are reasonably cheap to build,
>require no maintainence and are very effective. Even a fleet of 21 ships
>would suffer severe losses trying to take a planet with a full complement of
>fixed defenses.
>
Actually, it's the other way around -- ships (or specifically,
fighters) have the advantage over planetary defenses. The fighters are
your best standoff weapon. You can place them in transports early in
the game, and take out orbitals without losing a single ship.
<snip>
>
>In conclusion this would be a very good game -- if it wasn't for the
>difficulty in conquering enemy planets. This means the game takes an
>inordinately long time to finish. Of course there may be some tactic to
>overcome this problem, but I haven't found it yet.
>
Try this tactic:
If it's early in the game, build four transports with 2 or 3 lf-02's
each. Build 3 or 4 cruisers -- outfit one with a minesweeper, and all
with lots of point defense weapons plus a good combat computer and
sheilds. When you attack a planet, first select your transports
(press 3), then order an attack with fighters (press q) and pick your
target -- press q again and pick another target to make sure all the
fighters have launched. When the orbitals are down, have the
transports retreat (press x), and press o to auto attack with your
cruisers. Keep your cruisers together through the minefield. If you
remember to place a PB weapon in the curisers, the planet will fall.
Later in the game, replace the transports with carries outfitted with
heavy fighters, and your battleships with some medium fighters. Try to
outfit a ship with a smart minesweeper as early as possible. EW class
weapons are great for point defense -- the faster the fire rate the
better. I favor screens to shields in my ships, and a computer that
can track 6 targets is good enough for me. But enough about me. The
tactic works only too well. Just remember to give your fighters a
chance to regenerate themselves between attacks.
BTW: check out www.pax2.com for a game patch.
Debaser
cheaply secondhand. Of the other games of this type, I have played MOO,
MOO2 and Stars.
Here are some comments I have:
* All in all, very similar to the above mentioned games. A galaxy is
settled by 3-15 races with different characteristics. The galaxy can
include 20 to 100 star systems, each with 2-6 planets. These are very
small galaxies :-), but until a game is produced which allows a player to
control a more realistic number of star systems (i.e. millions at a time in
abstract groups, as I suggested in a post a while ago), this is the paradigm
we are stuck with.
* Graphics: very good, although the graphics in the very latest games in
this genre are probably better still.
* Interface: Good, but not as good as MOO2.
* The game is real-time rather than turn-based, but since you can alter the
rate of time this doesn't make much difference (ie. you make time very slow,
do whatever needs to get done, and then make time fast again).
* FTL travel is by wormholes. Each system is only linked by a limited
number of wormholes. This leads the very interesting situation where, for
example, a large empire may be connected to the rest of the galaxy by only
one wormhole -- and by putting his entire fleet in front of that wormhole a
player can effectively defend his empire (if anyone has read the book "On
Death Ground" by David Weber then they will understand the very interesting
strategic situations this premise can lead to).
* The biggest problem I have with this game is a distinct advantage of fixed
defenses over starships. In most other games it is possible to assemble
vast, almost unstoppable, fleets and then go rampaging through the galaxy.
In this game ships are very expensive to maintain. One full fleet (21
ships) is the about the most even a wealthy civilization could afford. On
the other hand, fixed defenses for planets are reasonably cheap to build,
require no maintainence and are very effective. Even a fleet of 21 ships
would suffer severe losses trying to take a planet with a full complement of
fixed defenses.
* Spying and sabotage is available. It is even possible to cause an enemy
planet to rebel and go over to your side or to destroy defenses. But since
you (apparently) cannot select which planets will be targeted, this does
little to alleviate the problem mentioned above.
sum...@mediaone.net
>I just picked up a copy of Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain (published 1997) very
>cheaply secondhand. Of the other games of this type, I have played MOO,
>MOO2 and Stars.
Cheaply? Good, at least you got what you paid for.
>
>Here are some comments I have:
>
>* All in all, very similar to the above mentioned games.
Except moo and stars have some depth. The early design of this game
had some depth before they chopped the arms and legs off of it, now
its strictly beer and pretzels.
A galaxy is
>settled by 3-15 races with different characteristics. The galaxy can
>include 20 to 100 star systems, each with 2-6 planets. These are very
>small galaxies :-), but until a game is produced which allows a player to
>control a more realistic number of star systems (i.e. millions at a time in
>abstract groups, as I suggested in a post a while ago), this is the paradigm
>we are stuck with.
>
>* Graphics: very good, although the graphics in the very latest games in
>this genre are probably better still.
Blizzard did these.
>
>* Interface: Good, but not as good as MOO2.
Blizzard did this too.
>
>* The game is real-time rather than turn-based, but since you can alter the
>rate of time this doesn't make much difference (ie. you make time very slow,
>do whatever needs to get done, and then make time fast again).
Blizzard did this too and it was too much work to change it.
>
>* FTL travel is by wormholes. Each system is only linked by a limited
>number of wormholes. This leads the very interesting situation where, for
>example, a large empire may be connected to the rest of the galaxy by only
>one wormhole -- and by putting his entire fleet in front of that wormhole a
>player can effectively defend his empire (if anyone has read the book "On
>Death Ground" by David Weber then they will understand the very interesting
>strategic situations this premise can lead to).
>
>* The biggest problem I have with this game is a distinct advantage of fixed
>defenses over starships. In most other games it is possible to assemble
>vast, almost unstoppable, fleets and then go rampaging through the galaxy.
>In this game ships are very expensive to maintain. One full fleet (21
>ships) is the about the most even a wealthy civilization could afford. On
>the other hand, fixed defenses for planets are reasonably cheap to build,
>require no maintainence and are very effective. Even a fleet of 21 ships
>would suffer severe losses trying to take a planet with a full complement of
>fixed defenses.
You obviously havnt played very much. After the early game, a single
fleet of ships can mop up any planet regardless of defences even
without the transport carrier tactic.
>
>* Spying and sabotage is available. It is even possible to cause an enemy
>planet to rebel and go over to your side or to destroy defenses. But since
>you (apparently) cannot select which planets will be targeted, this does
>little to alleviate the problem mentioned above.
This was spliced into the game only 6 weeks before release-the online
and printed documentation is totally different and the gameplay
reflects a system that was hacked out at the last minute. An easy 5
race points is putting your esponiage to minimum and ignoring it.
>
>In conclusion this would be a very good game -- if it wasn't for the
>difficulty in conquering enemy planets. This means the game takes an
>inordinately long time to finish. Of course there may be some tactic to
>overcome this problem, but I haven't found it yet.
Easy game once you get past the early game-tedius in the late game as
you wait for combat to run itself out. I struggle on hard in moo
but beat this game readily on diety. Try minimizing esponiage and
making sure you can colonize all atmospheres. The one good thing this
game had was auto-build ques-micromanagement in this game is very low
for a builder. Pax 1 was definitely a better design, although it was
fairly buggy and had a weak AI.
>
>
Debaser
>
>Later in the game, replace the transports with carries outfitted with
>heavy fighters, and your battleships with some medium fighters.
Hey you're right -- I use a mixture of battleships armed mostly with PD
weapons and carriers armed mostly with heavy or medium fighters. Just sit
back and destroy the wave of enemy fighters with your PD. Then send in the
fighters to destroy the battlestation at least, missile station as well if
possible. Finally just send in the battleships to clear the minefield.
Works well, but takes a while and uses up a lot of fighters.
>
>BTW: check out www.pax2.com for a game patch.
>
Good patch, I already downloaded it.
sum...@mediaone.net
>
>
>>
>>Later in the game, replace the transports with carries outfitted with
>>heavy fighters, and your battleships with some medium fighters.
>
>Hey you're right -- I use a mixture of battleships armed mostly with PD
>weapons and carriers armed mostly with heavy or medium fighters. Just sit
>back and destroy the wave of enemy fighters with your PD. Then send in the
>fighters to destroy the battlestation at least, missile station as well if
>possible. Finally just send in the battleships to clear the minefield.
>Works well, but takes a while and uses up a lot of fighters.
Interesting tactic, I usually have 30-50% carriers, the rest cA and
BB. Thats usually enough ftrs without using ftr on BB. However,
especially in large universe games, the AI does send fleets against
you and carrier ftr are not usually enough to kill the enemy before
being wiped out and my BB usually do the majority of the work. Is
that tactic effective against enemy fleets?
Beta
>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 03:02:23 +1000, "Debaser" <deb...@deb.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Later in the game, replace the transports with carries outfitted with
>>>heavy fighters, and your battleships with some medium fighters.
>>
>
>Interesting tactic, I usually have 30-50% carriers, the rest cA and
>BB. Thats usually enough ftrs without using ftr on BB. However,
>especially in large universe games, the AI does send fleets against
>you and carrier ftr are not usually enough to kill the enemy before
>being wiped out and my BB usually do the majority of the work. Is
>that tactic effective against enemy fleets?
>>>
Not to where it will save your carriers from destruction in a major
fleet battle. To me, carriers are nothing more than a means of
delivering heavy fighters to battle. As such, I usually don't place
any primary weapons in my carrier designs. In major fleet battles,
I'll attack the enemy's BB with my fighters, and then just auto attack
with my BB's and cruisers. If the battle goes badly for me, I'll have
the carriers retreat before risking their loss in a slugging match.
Actually, I think the biggest advantage in placing medium fighters in
a BB design is with cost savings. While the main battle group is out
smashing planets, you need to have a "rear guard" force to protect
your flanks and the like. There a BB armed with 3 or 4 Mantis or Cobra
fighters can provide that small "rear guard" with fighter protection.
If the main battle group does its job properly, then placing carriers
in the "rear guard" is a bit of a waste. The BB is a multi-role ship.