Supcom Psalms

Supreme Commander is Life.

40. A loss from delay is better than a loss from waste

Posted by Wayne on July 5, 2012

While planning economic activities with the intention of minimizing losses and maximizing gains, it is easy to overestimate the effects of resource shortfalls.  Constructing military assets is fundamentally important toward ensuring security, just as constructing economic infrastructure is fundamental to growing total construction capacity; but just how important is having available resources for immediate completion of projects?

If one more engineer on an expensive project causes the player’s economy to run into a shortfall (less input than output AND zero stored resources), then what is the total damage to global efforts from that one engineer’s addition?  To any local project it will be insignificant, only slowing production while resources are distributed.  In a perfect scenario, the shortfall will be exactly above zero with a net gain of zero; in favorable scenarios the shortfall will be below zero and the net gain will be slightly negative.

The alternative economic theory requires that resources must be available before new construction projects are initiated.  This means that until either a large pool of unused/idle money accumulates or a steady surplus of inputs is established, then no additional activity should ever initiate.  The result of such philosophy is wasting resources that cannot be stored.  It also requires a larger presence of micromanagement since one must constantly position engineers and time their initiation with available resources.

There is a significant difference between prioritizing a small number of mission critical projects and constantly updating the priority of all mission projects; though the difference between strict definitions may depend on context and circumstances, making such strict definitions impossible.  The most important feature of strategic planning is to always have resources in motion (never idly waiting for a stockpile) and have workers engaged or moving between projects.

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

39. Shields

Posted by steve on February 17, 2010

Shields are the most misused element of supreme commander.

To start with, shields are expensive for their cost, really expensive. The Aeon T2 shield provides 35 shielded health per area, more than twice the average of the games other shields, in comparison T1 Mass Fabricators have more than ten times the health per area. What about upkeep cost? The UEF T3 shield costs 7.5 mass (in accordance with psalm 14) to operate, 10 shields, a common number, costs 75 mass a second.

Shields should only be built in limited numbers at concentrated defense points where walls are can be used to keep enemies from physically entering the shields radius, while engineers support the shield. Area coverage of bases with shields should be avoided at all times except in situations on very small maps with high economy concentrations while under threat of aerial bombardment or T3 Artillery.

The best and more effective alternative to shields is to spread your bases out, it’s cheaper to rebuild economy than it is to protect it!

Notable Extremes:
– Cybran T2 Level 1 shields have the most efficient assisted regeneration.
– Cybran T2 Level 5 shields have the most expensive build cost.
– Cybran T2 Level 5 shields have the most expensive upkeep cost.
– Cybran T2 Level 5 shields have the most expensive assist cost.
– UEF T3 shields has the largest coverage area.
– Aeon T2 shields and Cybran T2 Level 2 shields are nearly tied for fastest assisted regeneration rate.
– Aeon T2 shields have the best health to upkeep cost ratio.
– Aeon T2 shields have by far the highest health per area.
– Aeon T2 mobile shields have the best build cost to health ratio.
– Aeon T3 shields have the most health.




More Shield charts are contained in the chart section of the site.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

38. Economic Growth Projection

Posted by steve on July 28, 2009

Identifying a situation appropriate growth rate is necessary to accurately project economic growth and military production capability.

The below chart shows the cost in time of generating the resources required for the construction of an additional T3 power at 100%, 50% and 25% growth priorities, assuming unlimited mass fabrication capacity and engineering capacity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

37. Aircraft Cost Charts

Posted by steve on July 5, 2009

Price is calculated in accordance with psalm 14
Price = Mass + E/40

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

36. Resource Generation Costs, Performance and Output in terms of Siege Bots

Posted by steve on June 8, 2009

Cost and output are measured in terms of siege bots per minute.

Energy is converted in accordance with Psalm 14 (Mass = Energy / 40)

Note that the T3 generator’s doubling time is one third of the T1 generators, but keep in mind that the price of the T3 generator is 51 times that of the T1 generator and that it would take 128 T1 generators to produce output equivalent to the T3 generator’s. Also it must be pointed out that the above comparison between T1 and T3 generators assume that all of the T1 generators come online simultaneously, however the price of the 128 T1 generators viewed as a whole would be much lower if the generators came online one at a time. This line of thinking suggests that output is lost during construction of the T3 power generator and to minimize this loss the player should focus as much construction effort on the T3 power generator as possible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

35. Distributed Unit Production and Aggregation

Posted by steve on June 2, 2009

Distributed unit production is the act of producing units at separate and distinct locations. Unit aggregation is the act of collecting and uniting dispersed units.

Distributed production and aggregation is easy in supreme commander.

1. Build factories in separate locations, assist each factory with engineers.

2a. Set the factories to have a common que destination using the factory move control.

2b. Setup a multi- air transport ferry route, select all of your disunited units and instruct them to board the transports. The transports will disperse and collect each group of units and drop them at the ferry route destination.

2c. Setup a multi- air transport ferry route, using your factories move control instruct your units to board the transport ferry route. The transports will automatically pickup units as they exit the factory and ferry them to the ferry route destination.

The primary benefit to distributed unit production and aggregation is that your production is distributed and their for harder to kill and easier to defend in the sense that you can’t lose all of your production in the same attack. If you choose you use air transports you will have an active air transport fleet where you can easily move the destination of your ferry route to the location that is under attack and then instruct your assembled army to board the ferry route and they will be ferried to where they are needed; which saves on defence expenses such as point defence. You can also use your air transport fleet to make a combat drop on your enemies.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

34. The most valuable resource in supreme commander is your time.

Posted by steve on May 20, 2009

The most difficult skill to learn is efficient time management.

It’s obvious that micromanaging your army early game is more advantageous than micromanaging your army late game; but it isn’t obvious that micromanaging your army instead of micromanaging your economy is counter productive. Losing an army is more desirable than losing the ability to build another, by micromanaging your attacks you neglect economic growth which includes resource generation and military production.

The best industrial military strategy in supreme commander is to identify a proper unit mix and then “Fire and Forget”.

Build your armies using a relevent unit mix, identify a point of attack or a strategic objective to capture or eliminate, select a route of attack or a pre-attack que location and then send your army on it’s way. Fire and forget; an army is not a resource to defend, it can defend itself and it’s ability to defend itself is comperable to its construction price.

Never forget that an army at worst is only worth it’s construction price and at best worth victory.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

33. Silver Bullets (experimentals and their real price)

Posted by steve on April 24, 2009

Many players consider only experimentals when situations get deadlocked. I went through and calculated the price of each experimental in terms of siege bots.

Mavor’s is equivalent in price to 916 siege bots or 3 and a half T3 artillery or a combination of the two. Imagine what you could do with over nine hundred siege bots.

Strategic Missle Launcher is equivalent in price to 280 siege bots, and each nuke is equivalent in price to 52 siege bots. Honestly, how often do you kill fifty two siege bots worth of enemy hardware?

T3 Artillery 245 siege bots, costs three and a half siege bots a shot (13.6 a minute).

Scathis price is 182 siege bots and every two projectiles cost the same as a siege bot. Every minute the Scathis costs 30 siege bots to continue firing.

Don’t build experimentals until you’re completely handicapped by unit limits.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

32. Air Defence

Posted by steve on March 28, 2009

Often players concentrate all of their anti-air defences; don’t do that, unless you are fighting concentrated t3 or t4 gunships without air superiority over your base. Each type of air defence has it’s advantages, you should take advantage of them.

Surface to Air Missiles: Often inappropriately used as the final solution in concentrated air defence. SAM launchers when used in very large well spaced grids with slightly overlapping ranges can saturate huge areas of land or sea making it impossible for enemies to operate aircraft in the area.

Anti-Aircraft Artillery: Flack is the best solution for hardened concentrated air defence.

Mobile Anti-Aircraft Artillery: Completely ignored by the vast majority of players, yet they have become my primary form of land based air defence. T1 and T2 mobile anti-aircraft artillery can always be reorganized to maximize their affect if a region becomes important or irrelevant, you can simply move your air defence. They can also quickly arrange themselves into a well spaced grid when a group is instructed to defend other units or in my case a single wall segment used as an air defence point.

Interceptors: T1 and T3 fights are fantastic for eliminating bombers and other fighters, and as a last resort bringing fire upon gunships.

Gunships: Apparently intended for attacking land based forces, however most players are unaware of their fantastic capacity for destroying other gunships. T2 and T3 gunships are the ideal mobile solution for other T2 and T3 gunships and especially T4 gunships.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

31. Surface to Air Missiles vs Anti-Aircraft Artillery

Posted by steve on March 28, 2009

The SAM launcher is two and a half times more expensive than the AAA and the SAM launcher deals eight times as much damage per second as the AAA. At first that may look like a fantastic return ratio, but it’s deceptive. The SAM launcher and AAA can only target one aircraft at a time, however the AAA deals splash damage and the SAM does not.  

Two SAM launchers and five AAA are equivalent in price. Two simultaneous targets vs five simultaneous targets. The two SAM launchers deal three and a quarter times more damage, however the AAA will often have overlaping which makes them ideal for defending against massed aircraft attacks. The SAM launchers true strength is area defence. It’s range is twice that of AAA and it will likely kill most aircraft that fly within it’s range do to exposure time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

30. Assisting Factories with Engineers

Posted by steve on February 17, 2009

In vanilla supcom their is no exponential cost to assist factories. The additional cost is simply the engineers contribution to the production of the unit at hand. When dozens of engineers are assisting a factory the greatest time cost is waiting for the unit to clear the construction pad,  it is more timely to have more than one factory and to split the engineers into equal groups so that the time to clear the construction pad is reduced by a predictable amount.

production time lost to units clearing the construction pad = time to clear construction pad / factory count

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

29. Quiting when you don’t know what to do is always the worst option. (Contingency Planning)

Posted by steve on February 14, 2009

To win it is always essential to develop a war book. 

A war book is a list of everything that must be done in war. War is much more than tactical maneuvering, war is all of the inteligence and man power that opposing forces can mobilize. Most Supreme Commander players have memorized an initial war book, they know exactly what to do for the first eight to ten minutes; but as soon as the clock ticks out of the familiar predictable progression, most players fall back on a closed posture which is easy to memorize. Players simply ‘pork’ up, they fall into a contracted defensive position where they aimlessly build static defenses. This is a lose situation.

The contents of war books are often mundane and obvious when you step out of the situation. 

For Example:

The most common situation is defeating a player who is aimlessly fortifying.

  1. Setup radar coverage.
  2. Identify all radar blips.
  3. Prioritize targets.
  4. Identify a method to destroy your target.
  5. Destroy your target.
  6. Repeat.

This system is incomplete, it requires that you also have a system for prioritizing targets.

  1. Power Infrastructure
  2. Mass Fabrication
  3. Manufacturing
  4. Defenses

And then a method for destroying your target.

  1. Bomber Strike
  2. Land Strike
  3. Artillery Strike
  4. Nuclear Strike

And grading the apropriate method based on types of defenses… and the list goes on.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

28. Depreciation and SupCom

Posted by Wayne on January 19, 2009

Depreciation is a Financial Accounting term used to describe the estimated useful life of something in terms of resources (money in real life).  There are three methods, factories use the “units of production” method rather than either of the other two.  The idea is that we can only expect the factory to produce so many of a unit before it is lost, and anything after that is an altruistic bonus from our opponent(s).  Since we will never know how many unit will actually be produced from a factory before the game ends or the factory dies; we have to establish rational goals instead.  As an example, every nine seige bots produced justifies constructing one new factory and upgrading it to tech 3.

Here is an example why…

Each seige bot costs about 1/9 of a T3 factory (including upgrades); therefore each factory must produce at least 9 seige bots for the total cost of those 9 bots to be 1/2 fixed and 1/2 variable costs.  If we can expect to need 50 seige bots to overrun and destroy our opponents, then we will obviously need more than 1 factory to produce them.  We also know that building 50 factories is a waste of both time and resources.  The fastest way to produce them is to have factories numbering (SQRT of 50 = 7), but that may not be economically beneficial.  In this situation, 5 factories would be economically superior to 7 factories (without sacrificing too much time).

If we could expect to need 500 seige bots, then we would want to have at most (500/9 = 55) factories and at least (SQRT 500 = 22) factories.  With 22 factories we would produce at the fastest rate with the lowest total cost (fixed + variable).

Factories needed = seige bots / 9   … or…  SQRT( total seige bots )  [whichever number is lower]

To make this scenario more realistic, we will add one more layer of complexity (and we’ll assume that those 500 siege bots will be used over the entire game instead of all in one attack).  All T1 Factories have a build rate of 10, T2 of 20, and T3 of 30 (double in FA).  All engineers follow a similar progression of T1=5, t2=10, and T3=15 (we’ll ignore support commanders because they’re not supposed to be used primarilly for construction) (same build rates for FA).

Six T1 engineers will effectively count for an additional factory.  However, six T1 engineers cost 6/98 as much as a new factory and 6/58 as much time.  Putting more tech 1 engineers around the same factory increases production linearly.

The only limitation to having an infinite number of engineers assisting the same factory is the time it takes for the unit to leave the factory.  Through experience, up to 16 engineers may assist a land factory without significantly blocking the path of the unit leaving (minimizing downtime).  Air units fly, so this limitation is effectively non-existant (use as many engineers to assist an air factory as possible).

The cost of engineers is insignificant compaired to a T3 factory, so we’ll ignore it.  The relationship of time to build engineers’ at different tech levels is:

T1 = 150 T2 = 440 and T3 = 980   (for Vanilla, the spread is even more dramatic for FA)

Assuming we’re still building seige bots and not spamming lower tech level units (a valid strategy)…  the maximum number of factories would have a simultaneous build rate of 1650 and the least we could accept has a build rate of 660.  Using 16 T1 engineers gives us a combined build rate of 120 (80 + 30 from the factory).  We need a minimum of 6 factories with this set up.  If we use T3 engineers, 16 gives a combined build rate of 270 (240 + 30 from the factory).  We need a minimum of 3 factories with that set up.  The maximums are affected by the fact we’re using engineers instead of upgraded factories.  Tech 1 engineers assisting a factory require it to construct 11 seige bots to depreciate fixed costs.  Tech 3 engineers require 24 seige bots to depreciate fixed costs.  While the (fixed + variable) cost of each siege bot increases by +22% and +166% (respectively); the production speed of each one produced increases by +300% and +800% (respectively).  We could use up to 45 factories with T1 engineers or we could use up to 20 factories with T3 engineers.

The least amount of time and resources will still use (SQRT 500=22) factories, but with Tech 1 engineers assisting it will take 1/4 the original time.  With Tech 3 engineers, we would not produce enough seige bots to fully depreciate our fixed cost, and so we want to use the lower number of 20; which will take about 1/9 the time to complete production.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

27. Fixed Costs and Variable Costs also apply to Supreme Commander

Posted by steve on January 18, 2009

The cost of your siege bot factory is a fixed cost, the cost of producing siege bots is a variable cost. The total cost of your siege bot is the price of your siege bot in addition to the price of your siege bot factory divided by the number of siege bots produced. Therefore, the more siege bots you build, the less each siege bot costs.

siege bot cost = siege bot price + (price of factory / total siege bots produced)

For example: the price of a t3 land factory is equal to the price of nine siege bots; therefore, if you build nine siege bots, each siege bot’s cost is in fact twice it’s listed price. If you build eighteen siege bots, then the cost of each siege bot will be 25% lower than if you had only built nine.

The true cost of your siege bots will always be higher than the listed price.

The more siege bots you build, the less they all cost, including the ones that have already been built.  Production capacity is very important, but keep total costs and variable costs in mind; the more factories you build, the more each siege bot costs. Review Psalm 30 to read more about production capacity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

26. A win is a win no matter the means used to achieve that win.

Posted by steve on January 17, 2009

No tactic is “noob”, no tactic is “cheap”, no cost is too high so long it results in final victory.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

25. Being well tuned means having perfect timing.

Posted by Wayne on January 17, 2009

Like an engine that runs at peak performance, success in any endeavor requires precise timing.  Moving, building, and idling all require forethought to contribute to a favorable outcome.

Coordinating forces to move upon your opponent’s base from a variety of angles is only effective when they arrive with a planned, coordinated effect.  Either all of the forces arrive simultaneously to overwhelm the defending forces -or- they arrive from opposite sides with delay, so as to have concentrated defenders on one side when the other wave arrives unopposed on the opposite side.

Constructing military assets early in a game may allow for immediate assault, but it sacrifices economic development that could have been constructed instead.  That additional income lost per tick could have been used to construct further economic development.  If engineeering potential is built in tandem with economic capacity, then growth of the entire system is exponential and infinite.  However, if military assets are never created then a large military force will wipe out all of the economic benefits of exponential growth.  Not only must a player balance how much economy is spent on creating army, but a player must balance when to start building army and when to focus on building army.  This all depends on map size and the aggresiveness of the opponent(s).  An opponent that walks their army across a large map gives you a time advantage while an opponent that airlifts his forces across oceans takes away such advantages.

Having your forces standing still is generally considered a sin.  However, there are times when it is favorable to wait for other events to conclude before committing your forces to action.  Having enough air transports to airlift at least 50% of your army rather than 20% is a perfect example.  Allowing two opponents to destroy each others’ armies before putting your army into action is another great example.  Waiting for economic buildings to complete before starting new engineering projects is further proof that standing idle is not always truely idle.

A typical fuel engine needs to coordinate intake, compression, explosion, and exhaust between multiple cylinders to run at peak efficiency.  A commander in battle needs to coordinate construction, expansion, production, and aggression to operate at peak efficiency.  While the biggest and best units may be the most powerful, if they can not be produced in massive quantities, then weaker units could be more effective from a production point of view.  The commander that wins may have the worst kill ratio, but he still wins.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

24. Idle forces become expensive forces over time.

Posted by steve on January 14, 2009

Avoid calculating a unit’s cost based only on it’s (mass + energy) price.  Instead calculate a unit’s cost based on what it costs you in future production through terms of “lost production capacity” vs “short term benefit”.

For example:

The price of seven and a half T2 Tanks is equal to the price of a single T2 power generator. The output of a single T2 power generator is equivalent to an additional T2 Power generator every two minutes. Two T2 Power Generator’s output is equivalent to an additional T2 Power Generator every minute. Three T2 Generator’s output is equivalent to an additional T2 Power Generator in forty seconds. Four T2 Power Generator’s output is equivalent to sixteen T2 Tanks a minute.

The price of seven and a half T2 tanks costs four T2 Power generators in just three minutes and forty seconds. Therefore, in three minutes and forty seconds your seven and a half T2 Tanks will cost you sixteen tanks a minute in lost production. The future price of each tank will be three and three quarter’s seconds of output. By expanding your economy you are lowering the future cost of each unit you build. It is important to note that seven and a half T2 tanks don’t build additional tanks or replace loses.

If you build military force, they must be used immediately before time depreciates their value.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

23. Defence in depth defeats concentrated attacks at minimal risk.

Posted by steve on January 12, 2009

Defense in depth expands killing potential by prolonging ranged exposure while at the same time reducing the threat potential of concentrated attacks and their splash affects upon your defences. 

1. The longer the opportunity your guns have to fire at a target, the greater the damage they will deal.

2. Dispersed defences take much longer to kill since the enemy must move between point defences, and in fact a lone point defence will often be ignored by an enemy player. The travel time between the defences will increase the weapons exposure time.

3. If all of your defences are concentrated they are very vulnerable to overwhelming concentrated attacks. However, a horde of t1 bombers will accomplish little if your defences are dispersed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

22. Dispersion allows near unlimited damage absorption.

Posted by Wayne on December 23, 2008

When forces are concentrated, they may be encircled and systematically eliminated.  When forces are dispursed, they must be individually hunted down and destroyed.  While the aggressor is able to destroy anything encountered, the defender is able to replace and reposition anything that is destroyed.  In this way, the defender only loses assets in a short term timeline.  Further, the defender may constantly harass aggressive forces making their assault excessively costly.  So long as the offensive ability of the assaulting forces is not increased, the defender may retreat and replace his assets indefinitely.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

21. Redundancy is survivability.

Posted by Wayne on December 23, 2008

When faced with any scenario, there will always be random elements that can not be forseen in any capacity and mitigating the risk they impose upon your efforts may be impossible to entirely manage for that reason.  The statistical probabilty that any one method will succeed or any one item will survive is enough to consider gambling with the odds.  The purpose of gambling in this fashion is not to risk success, but to chance which contingency will succeed.  Always assume that your opponent will be able to destroy your base, so build multiple bases around the world.  Always assume that your opponent will be able to defeat your assault, so plot multiple methods of simultaneous attack.

If seige bots are sure to succeed, then also send heavy tanks from the opposite direction in case of unforseen disaster.  If gunships are sure to succeed, then also send bombers in case of unexpected anti-air capabilities.  If shields are sure to absorb all of the damage, then walls can only help to support that effect.

At worst, you will acheive an innefficient victory.  At best, you will narrowly succeed where you should have failed otherwise.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

20. Excessive specialization is self defeating.

Posted by Wayne on December 18, 2008

Every strategy has a weakness and every unit can be counterred.  Utilizing only one path to victory may be efficient in short games, but it has the limitation of being inneffective when facing an adapting opponent and during longer games.  If that type of opponent is encountered and you are unable to adapt your strategy to his shifting methods, then you are condemned to defeat when your first attempt fails to acheive victory.  When at first you do not succeed, then persist with a variety of methods.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

19. Point Defence < Walls + T1 bombers

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Static defences are not weapons of victory, but merely a means of buying time in the event of an enemy attack.  Siege bots can always be used to attack, but a point defence building can not.  Hoarding any units in one’s base is the conceptual equivalent of building mobile point defence.  If one possesses an experimental in their base for defensive purposes without having multiple experimentals attacking their opponent; then it is a huge waste of potential.  Static defences are an inflexible and inefficient use of resources that buy time at best and go unused at worst. 

In terms of buying time, nothing significantly compares to walls.  For the price of a single tech two point defence, you could build 240 wall segments.  Build your wall segments in zig zaging lines to increase confusion.  While your enemy tries to navigate through or destroy your wall segments; you may move or build units to defend against the incoming attack.  Tech 1 bombers are cheap, impervious to fire from the majority of land units, move unrestricted to any part of the map, and deal more damage per second then a siege bot for the resource cost.

The essential advantage of tech 1 bombers and walls in combination, is that you will constantly whittle down your opponent’s attacking forces without losing assets yourself.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

18. It is easier to defeat a one thousand-man army than it is to defeat a thousand one man armies.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

A concentrated enemy is always cheaper to defeat than a dispersed enemy.  Dispersion will force priority selection.  Often less important priorities will be neglected entirely.  If any attack is neglected by the defender, then that attack will always succeed.  A defender with a limited defence capability will neglect all but the most important targets.  Balance your total dispersion with localized concentration and you will always have force superiority where it matters.

When attacked by a greater force, disperse your force.  Your enemy will either disperse his own force in an attempt to destroy your detachments or ignore your tactic entirely.  Only re-concentrate your forces where you can have force superiority over his detachments.  If your enemy does not disperse his force, then you must harrass his lesser defended assets to maintain his force’s moving from point to point in his own territory (rather than steam rolling through your assets).  Even attacking with singular units on alternating sides of his force may cause him to halt his advance (while he eliminates your forces one at a time).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

17. Safety is Seductive.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Destroying your enemy’s weakest and/or outlying defences first will encourage him to concentrate future defences.  Ultimately forcing down the cost in effort of his destruction.

An enemy who seeks to destroy your weakest and/or outlying defences should be repaid in kind.  Avoid replacing destroyed defences and never build additional defences.  To conentrate your efforts on making your territory inpenetrable will only give you a false sense of security and force down the cost in effort to destroy you.  Even if the cost of resources is higher, you only prolong the innevitable end result of your tightly, well defended base being indescriminately destroyed by splash damage.  Aircraft, Artillery and Experimentals all deal huge volumes of damage to small areas.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

16. A strong mind must be completely destroyed; a weak mind must simply be discouraged.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

You can break a strong spine, but never a strong mind.  A player that accepts that he will be destroyed (whether it is true or not) will often quit rather than face destruction.  But a player that refuses to see his destruction as imminent (even when it is true) will often outlast a less committed opponent who is on the verge of victory.

A victory over the mind is more efficient victory than a victory over matter. A victory over mind is a fight you only fight once and minds are often weaker than spines.

For Example: Destroy your enemy’s outlying defences and surround him with as many radar blips as possible.  A single seige bot in his base may be enought to convince him that his fear of defeat is his reality – tricking him into surrendering to a hoard of tech 1 bots is cheaper then defeating him physically.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

15. Energy is the most important resource.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

1. Energy is unlimited.

2. Energy can be converted to mass.  (but not vice versa)

3. Mass extraction spots are limited in output and availability, while energy may be produced anywhere in any amount.

4. Mass extractors stop production when energy is deficient.  Energy never stops being produced.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

14. M = E/40 (Mass equals Energy)

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Mass fabricators convert energy to mass at a ratio of 40 to 1.  If you are wasting energy than you are wasting mass.  Wasting 4000 energy per second is the same as wasting 100 mass per second; and 100 mass per second could be used to build an (Experimental Monkey Lord) spider bot in five minutes and fifteen seconds.  Therefore, if you are wasting 4000 energy per second then you are actually wasting one spider bot every five and a quarter minutes.  If you are wasting resources, then you are forgoing the units those resources could have built and the damage they could have dealt.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

13. The competitive victory is the most efficient victory.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

If you win a battle with forces left over, it means that those remaining forces could have been allocated elsewhere.  If you catagorically destroy your opponent, then it is not a competition but a waste of your time.  Defeating your opponent with just enough forces to succeed is proof of efficiency.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

12. Anything worth doing, is worth doing the hard way.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

If a task is not easilly accomplished and the objective is not worth the effort required, then it was never important.  When a task may only be accomplished through difficulty and the objective is worth such effort; only then can it be considered important.  Finding an easier method does not dimish its importance, but merely saves effort.  Effort that is better spent elsewhere, proves that an objective is not important.  Effort that can now be spent elsewhere, proves that an easier method has been discovered.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

11. Total commitment is burning your bridges in both advance and retreat.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

By preserving the ability to reverse a decision, the ability to accept a lesser outcome is also preserved.  By removing the capability to doubt, the way to progress is forced to become clear.  The only risk is unconditional defeat, but the reward is total victory.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

10. The end justifies the means only when successful.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Handicapping one’s own capabilities by focusing on a singular strategy may lead to the downfall of lesser players, but veteran players will have bargained that handicap to obtain a “win” scenario.  Whether it be sacrificing ones own defence to press an attack on an opponent, spending vast quantities of economy on a hoard of highly effective units, using an army to force an opposing army to concentrate and nuking both, or any other seemingly hopeless activity; if it succeeds, then it was time and effort spent on a correct strategy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

9. Accept no excuses. Only the result is relevent.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

There is only one reasonable excuse: “I was defeated.”.  As a statement of fact: your opponent used resources more effectively, allocated those resources more accurately, and coordinated military hardware more efficiently.  The only explaination for the result is that you were inneffective, inaccurate, and inefficient; but as a whole irresponsible.  Take steps to correct that behavior.  Seek the guidance of peers, superiors, and techincal references to improve your conduct accordingly. Self improvement is better than simple hope, for winning your next game.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

8. Constant offense promotes self security.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

If you constantly posture your forces around your opponent’s assets, then he will constantly seek refuge and concentrate his defences.  He will allocate his resources in static defences which are incapable of assaulting your means of resource production.  Without defending your assets, you will assure their safety.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

7. Never surrender, never relent.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

The difference between withdrawing and retreating is the intention to resume offensive activities at another point.  A commander that has been led to believe that he is defending will tend to forget to attack and will in turn be defeated.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

6. The sweat of your brow belongs to you, but the DPS belongs to your enemy. Deliver it with extreme prejudice.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Economic activities are performed with the sole purpose of supporting production of military hardware.  Some economic activites increase the volume of resource production; while others increase production capacity; but the bulk is used to produce units and the means to deliver them to your opponents.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

5. From each, their ability; to each, their utility.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

The singular goal of your forces is victory.  Each unit has a specialization that produces “win”; but using those forces for any other task is a loss of potential.  Innefficient utilization of abilities negates production of “win” and may lead to such a defecit that “lose” is manufactured instead.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

4. More and faster.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Large cost and powerful units are unable to simultaneously engage an equally costly force of many weaker units.  A large number of units are able to bypass concentrated defences, overwhelm smaller volume forces, and engage a huge number of targets simultaneously; but without the danger of concentrating your capacity to receive damage.  Simply having more weapons firing simultaneously creates a larger amount of damage per second, but without the danger of applying more than neccessary damage to a single target.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

3. More is never enough.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

For as long as the potential to increase exists, then that potential must be realized.  Arbitrary limits will only serve to create a maximum value of your forces, and simultaneously create a minimun value that your opponent needs to defeat you.  When any attribute reaches a maximum, then its process must be improved as to minimize the effect of that limitation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

2. Inefficient unit selection is charity to your opponent.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Producing forces that have an unfavorable cost to effect ratio is the equivalent to handicapping your economy, sabotaging your military, and aiding your oppenent; of which, all of which are counterproductive.  Encouraging or supporting others to engage in such activities is thought crime.  Some units will have high costs to produce, but they are only expensive when their expected effect does not justify their cost.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

1. Firing nukes is losing, defending against nukes is winning.

Posted by steve on December 18, 2008

Launching nuclear weapons is the economic equivalent of dropping thirty siege bots on a single spot; intercepting a nuclear warhead is the equivalent of destroying those thirty siege bots before they deal any damage, but at a third of the cost.  Having used the siege bots instead would have at least dealt damage.   An intercepted nuclear weapon can only ensure that the opponent spent a third of your nuke’s price to destroy it.

Never destroy an enemy nuclear missile launcher.  Allow your enemy the opportunity to try and overwhelm your missile defence and you can ensure an economic victory per missile. Intercept a nuke and destroy the equivalent of thirty siege bots for the price of ten siege bots.

Notice in the chart below that the price of a nuclear missile launcher is equivalent to 270 siege bots and that each nuke is equivalent to 30 siege bots. For the cost of five nukes you could have built 523 Siege Bots, ten nukes 775 Siege bots and twenty nukes 1279 Siege Bots.

Nuke cost is calculated in accordance with psalm 27. Fixed Costs and Variable Costs also apply to Supreme Commander

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »