Page 1 of 1

Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:16 am
by DAI
So here is the question. How many of you, when you know where the enemys stronghold and outpost(s) are go right for the outpost?

Also on the subject of outpost and strongholds, how many of you think that an fight against an stronghold, should be more like an final boss fight from any other game(RTS, RPG and the like)?

Do you guys take the stonger strongholds in your deck, or are the strong holds too weak to be more then there cost in points?

Do you guy put outpost in your deck?

Thanks for answering my questions

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:58 am
by potatoedoughnut
I always take the cheapest strongholds. I try and have good recon and just not let my opponents ever establish supply to my HQ. I usually take ~4 of the cheap outposts for a huge rare/rare map.

As fas as offense goes it's situational. If it's undefended a quick kill is best, but often you need to take outposts to get supply range. The "epic battle" for me is usually the first meeting of the super stacks, whether it's in the field or in a base. After one army is destroyed it's usually a foregone conclusion from then out. The fun games are the ones with lots of little scrappy battles.

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:22 am
by imperialus
Question 1: It really depends on the game and how I've designed my deck. There is no one answer

Question 2: I'm not sure what you're asking here... The AI typically defends its strongholds fairly well. If you want a more challenging fight then I'd suggest 'buzzing' their stronghold. Make the AI anticipate an attack.

Question 3: It depends. I typically build using something with anti-air/anti-missile defense just to provide that extra layer of defense against WMD attacks.

Question 4: Yes. Especially if I plan on playing on a large or huge map. The supply range boost alone is worth it. I never bother with the fortified outposts. Those aren't worth the extra points.

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:00 am
by DAI
Imperialus my question for number two, is that in most battles do you find when you attack the enemys stronghold, to be anti-climaxed. You would think that your hardest battle, would be taken an enemy factions stronghold. The anti-climaxed part would be that your hardest battle was not to take there stronghold but to take the strong hold of an cult.

Also there is a range thing with some attack cards. Like the range of some WMD is five from a launch point, which could be a base and an unit. So tke counter post potatoedoughnut ideal, supply lines are not the many problem with WMD. Its were is there base or units (that can launch an WMD). Other point, is that there are units that act like supply hex. Which means that even if you are out of there supply range, they can attack with full power, as long as they have one of those supply units.

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:11 am
by imperialus
The problem with the anti-climactic final battle is that the AI needs to decide how best to use its limited resources. Oftentimes they'll try and make one or two killer armies and send them out to try and find your stronghold. In my experience I've personally found that Machines tend to put up the toughest resistance on the defense while Mutants are weakest on defense but strongest on attack. Like I said, one solution to this is to buzz the enemy stronghold, either by marching your army in front of it for a few turns or by sending in a recon unit to do a bit of damage ahead of time. Make the AI think defensively and you'll notice a difference. If you catch it unawares, simply rolling your army over the nearest dune and opening fire it won't stand a chance. The AI will be focused on attack and leave itself vulnurable.

The cult strongholds are often tougher nuts to crack because they operate in a much more limited manner when it comes to attack. They don't need to worry about sending armies off to try and take you out. They can focus solely on defense.

Remember a WMD needs a launch platform, not just any unit. The Imperials have the Artimus, Machines have the Leper, Mutants have the Pack Launcher, and Xeno's got nothin (I don't think... I never play xenos). While these units can be useful in very limited circumstances they are exceptionally vulnerable, worthless in an actual battle, slow moving (with the exception of the Pack Launcher), and generally very difficult to use well. Of the three the Pack Launcher is the best. It actually has an attack value, it can keep up with your armies (very important for mutants), and makes up for their lack of air power since the Machines, Imperials and Xenos can all extend their nuke range by strapping them onto a bomber.

The supply units, Field Post, Mausoleum, Mobile Hive, and Pack City suffer from the same problems as the launch platforms except they are even less useful in a standup fight. In fact they are a liability since the AI will often specifically target them since it knows (or assumes) that by knocking them out they'll drive you out of supply which can destroy the most powerful armies. IMO You're far better off including a couple of Firebases/Hidden Gourds or whatever and creating overlapping supply lines with a second reserve army holding the supply depots to keep them from getting knocked out. Make sure you have a decent recon unit in that army though since nothing will ruin your grand offensive faster than a saboteur hero blowing up your depot. Again the Mutant Pack City is probably the best of the bunch. It has 10 HP and 5 Defense (most the other have 4HP 4Defense). The downside is that it only has a movement of 2, which negates one of the Mutants most important advantages. It also doesn't allow you to repair in the field which can be quite disadvantageous in big battles of attrition.

The advantage to the supply units however is that they cannot be used against you. Your firebase can be captured and used by your enemies, oftentimes putting them within striking distance of your HQ. If the supply unit gets destroyed then it's gone for good, if your depot gets captured... well better hope your HQ has a good garrison.

I have experimented around with the supply units for slow moving armies by adding them to my reserve army and advancing them in tandem with my main force. This keeps both armies supplied and the supply unit relatively safe. It's very AP intensive though. The advantage of leapfrogging from base to base is that you only need to move one army at a time, as long as your furthest supply post is occupied you're golden. If you're advancing in tandum you need enough AP to move both armies. Unless you've built a lot of Intelligence centers/AP boosting hero's into your deck or lucked out capturing enemy hero's AP's become a precious resource in the late game.

Anyhow, that got more rambling than I thought it would. I'll shut up now.

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:01 am
by efelle
The choice of the stronghold in my decks is a question of theme rather than optimization.
By default I took the "bunker stronghold" for the WMD resistance.

For the outpost, I took the cheapest except in industrial oriented decks.

During the game, I usually eliminated the outpost to stop the incoming of IA armies. The nearest stronghold are submited by armies.
At the end of the game, I usually abused VWD or plasma blossom bomb.

PS : Sorry my english is quite dusty, I need practice.

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:09 pm
by imperialus
Efelle! Good to see you again. My computer crashed so I've been cruising the wastelands on my old machine for the last few days.

I was thinking about this last night (couldn't sleep and I've been playing a lot of AE in the past few days). There is at least one thing I neglected to mention, that is, the theme of the deck you are building. For some decks (like one that focused on WMD's or airpower), those units, particularly the launch platforms could be very useful.

My next game is going to be to modify the Manhattan Project deck build here: and try to use the Artimus to see what it's really capable of when you need to depend on it. I'll probably fail miserably but it'll be a cool deck to try out.

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:13 pm
by potatoedoughnut
What imperialus said.

Another couple points: part of good recon is preventing the enemy from every deploying an outpost in supply range of you, ie: never let them get a hero or Eng unit close to you. Same thing applies to mobile supply/launchers, with good recon you'll spot them early and be able to take them out. Many times either a precision air strike can take them out well before they're in range. Or for supply you can wait until they're out of their own supply, kill the mobile supply the first round of combat, and get pretty much free kills until they retreat.

Also, as far as climaxes go, in real world wars the turning point or climactic battle is rarely at one's capital or HQ or whatever. If you've allowed the enemy to get that close to your HQ you're pretty much screwed anyway.

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:17 am
by DAI
I don't think that the turning point. As there were still heavy loses for the Red army, during the fall of Berlin. You would think that your capital would be well enought defened to allow your forces at least some abilitity to fight back. I also belive that had the US had to send in troops into Japan that the US loss would of been greater the any turning point battle. We only need to look at the US civil war, to see how hard, some people will fight for there capital.

On this cult thing, the last I checked, they were minor factions, with the Mutants, Imperials, Machines and Xenopods, begin the major ones. To me this means that the real fight is between these factions with the cults, just getting in the way. So I would think that taken down other factions base would be a lot more darder then taken down an cult.

I think that the Dawn of war 40k: Dark Crusade, did a good show on how to reward the player for winning, but still be able to keep the other guy in the fight. Other wise, ever turning point, would result in an turning point battle, and then mop up. Dawn of war did this really well with each factions strongholds. Even if you owned the enitre map, but not this last strong hold, you still need to come with an plan to take them down. Even with all those resources, an strong hold battle, resulted in that if you failed to plan, you plan to fail. Each faction had some super bounes that only happed, when there stronghold was under attack.

On some level I think what we should ask for is some "stronghold only" bounes that allows for low to medium units, to fight back against super stacks. What do you guys think?

Re: Stronghold vs. outpost.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:34 pm
by Keypunch
The supply units, Field Post, Mausoleum, Mobile Hive, and Pack City suffer from the same problems as the launch platforms except they are even less useful in a standup fight. In fact they are a liability since the AI will often specifically target them since it knows (or assumes) that by knocking them out they'll drive you out of supply which can destroy the most powerful armies.

That's why it's often wise to put them in a separate stack. You can always delay a fight to move in your supply unit to the same hex and then you again get the option to attack.

I do the same trick with my "Bounty Hunter" stack. For the humans it's usually Adam Wraith + Imperial Rangers/Imperial Recon. For the larger part of the time, this stack buzzes around the map, doing recon (6 movement/2AP, woot!). But when I move in for a kill against a stack with a general, or against a base with generals, I first move in the main army, delay the fight, and then quickly shove the Bounty Hunter stack in there too.

This means that after a fight, you get the Bounty Hunter bonus.

And if you lose a fight, you can simply retreat the stack, without engaging, all you will get is the regular single attack, as you would if you retreated normally in the fight.