How accurate is...

[Possum]

Speaking of SEIV stock, the latest version, how accurately do you think the Score, (as shown on the F9/Score page), reflects actual in-game strength or standing?

I have noticed that some things, like bases in particular, seem to be rather heavily weighted.

[douglas]

Ships and bases are weighted far more heavily than they should be, technology is weighted far too lightly and doesn't take the cost of each tech or its actual usefulness into account, and units, planets, and population are completely ignored. Technology and ship count (actually total tonnage) also stack additively rather than the multiplicative scheme that would more accurately reflect their relationship - a higher tech ship is more powerful for the same tonnage than a low tech ship.

Score is a very rough indicator of strength and, if anyone cares about it, can be artificially inflated quite easily. All you have to do is build lots of empty bases.

[Narratio]

Likewise, big ships with minimum command, crew and life support, no engines etc. They cost little to maintain but add huge amounts to your game score, only works in an all AI game though.

[Gandalf Parker]

It can have its affect in human games also. But not if you overdo it.

Just to make it useful its better to build skeleton large ships at the bases way behind the lines instead of having them do nothing or make striker ships that are outdated chaff by the time they reach the frontlines. Then fly them to the front lines and upgrade them. That way you dont waste garbage units on them. By the time they are up to the front line you can upgrade them with much better equipment.

[Suicide Junkie]

Personally I think it is a flaw in the mod if your ships get obsoleted in less than 10 turns.

You shouldn't have to redesign and retrofit your ships that often; too much micromanagement.


On PBW, I'm looking forward to some battles between Brainiacs (+50% research, -20% SY/maint/resources) and efficient workers (-50% research, +20% SY/maint/resources)