Colonization strategies

[UesugiKenshin]

I would bet that most people start with the homesector and build colonies and then piecemeal then begin building colonies from that hub. It's a tried and true paradigm.

Alternatively some players build in lines to extend controlled space, then having established boundaries by encountering neighbor empires, then colonize within. Then if any other empires expand in your sphere of influence, they are foolishly inviting war with you.

Civ4 was unique as some started colonies then got subsumed by cultural influence and culture-flipped ie joined your empire which outrages the other empire and started wars.

Or being surrounded by your empire, then trade is impossible and the supply lines are cut off. It becomes implausible to redeploy units for garrison purposes (as doing so means violating your boundaries), and so troops are home-grown. Yet that is extremely difficult for budding colonies to manage as they need every citizen growing food or factories.

Colonization generally subtracts X number of citizens from the originating city. This accomplishes several things.
1. It reduces squalor due to overcrowding.
2. Excess citizens are turned into specialists of some sort like scientists or artisans or soldiers of bankers,etc.

It's not genuinely a colony ship but a fleet of colony ships given the billions who arrive,right?

[UesugiKenshin]

Pop-rushing is a standard strategy of 4x games where human players seek to carve out as large an empire as possible thinking they may lose some but it's unlikely based on the AI having a weak initial military and unable to actually wage war effectively. That can really work in a RTS version where tactics do exist and clever players learn how to manage formations and types of units and can cause an ambush, a surprise rear attack, attack where they hold the better terrain, and so a few strong units can defeat many weaker ones.

Battles are genenerally won by the side with superior technology and thus better units than the enemy, and who can manage an effective cashflow in their economy through trade. But not always when a superior tactician starts consistently applying them appropriately such that they become a brilliant strategist. It usually means dancing around the map array with a few strong units and being nimble so some kind of cavalry unit, mechanized infantry, or airships with ground attacks like a A10 Warthog which is a tank killer even though it's quite ancient technology and terribly slow.

I don't like pop-rushing as it usually confuses the AI. It's a legitimate way to play but it seems very ahistorical. I would rather set up the historical settlements for a time period and fight under those conditions instead of what if campaigns.

[UesugiKenshin]

You can't pull that stunt with multiplayers as they all likely will try it. There may be a consensus agreement where there will be no attacks until turn#X and then battle may or may not commence. But realize that likely the settlements will just end up being very similar to what is canonical.or historical.

Look at this screen capture. The Klingons are being peaceful to test the programming for illustrative purposes to document what the system can do. And it's working as things have calmed down internally to the Klingon Empire.

Even the Cardassians are acting differently, and perhaps confused as to what the devil are the Klingons doing?

There is a potential colony site, but it's very close to Cardassian territory. I don't know the boundaries they have, but there is a wormhole there. It's possible the Cardassian empire is largely elsewhere as there is little activity with probing of my northern boundary. So I suspect that they are coming through the wormhole. This likely means that ultimately I will absorb those colonies for logistical reasons as long as the Klingons control the wormhole.

Screenshot_2020-04-07-15-56-10.png

Screenshot_2020-04-07-15-55-50.png

So I can send a stronger colony ship there straight on,but such navigation likely will be challenged and repelled or start a diplomatic incident. It's safer to go shorter and then leap frog to the sector. And I likely will end up controlling it and from that borderland sector will be my staging areas of that portion of the Caradassian empire.

Screenshot_2020-04-07-15-55-30.png

I need to carefully navigate to Rukbat to actually end up controlling it and not have my colony ship shot down.

And it's not just them...but the Aszreth too. I hope to eventually get the latter into membership in the Klingon empire so then have two places where I can harass the Cardassians. I don't want to downgrade the Aszrethian's demeanor towards me by crossing into their sector.

If the Cardassians are sending probes and the Aszrethians have an initial fleet, then I could run into them instead of using my long range scans to detect and avoid a pointless confrontation. Losing battles is very bad for morale in the Klingon empire and it is not weighted as a ship might be a mere scout or a battleship. Losing a scout is expected in a galaxy milieu,but not a capital ship or even a cruiser when you are a warrior race.

[UesugiKenshin]

So that all means that my colonization strategy is different on the borderlands versus internally.

1.Such borderland colonies have to have garrisoned ships and troops, right?
2.They have to have the best intelligence agencies I can afford as they are the tip of the spear.
3. I have to have the best long range scans to pick up "chatter" ie enemy communications.
4. I have to rapidly ensure they have titanium to unlock better infrasructure.
5. I have to build the best barracks and shipyards as many will get wounded or damaged.

It's a rough place to be stationed with a high operating tempo. It begins with nothing and has to improve far faster than a settlement in the center.

Go back to the first post. This is why some better players rapidly expand and then their stronger settlements are on the borders to repel invasions and subterfuge and probes which test response time and level of alertness and discipline and "operational readiness".
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... tions.html

A fine strategy game like BotE allows young people to learn general military principles. It's very intellectually stimulating, not button mashing.

[UesugiKenshin]

If you colonize in the traditional manner, that staid hoary methodology is not for rapid reconnaissance.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 0/ch13.htm

Playing the old fashioned way is about being a defender and likely you are very stodgy about logistics and take few risks and overdefend and then when the border breach comes, your soldiers are not where they should be. Then you will constantly be playing catch up. That is crippling in chess. You cannot win by defending. Militaristic empires are offensive in nature. They leap at opportunities to test the merit, mettle, morale, and might of solders. They seize the initiative not react to an unexpected probe.

You press until resistence is met. You are in charge not reacting. Even responding is not good enough and gets soldiers killed.

[UesugiKenshin]

With a high rate of expansion and focusing on warp speed, and tech that modifies ranges, and space docks, then a clever player or the AI can rapdily clip along and colonize. Would that really work in real life? Well it was ruinous to the Vikings as rapid colonization plus their naval tech meant they had the the advantage, but bad weather like the mini Ice Age cut off their settlements in Iceland and Nova Scotia and so with no working supply chains, that paradigm faltered in reality. The Vikings discovered the New World and were the fastest at raiding and trade all over the world. They were such excellent navigators they ended up as the East Roman empire (Byzantine) mercenaries and explored the Middle East and the Mediterranean before everyone else.

Most colonization faltered by empires as the colonies asserted independence or local people ended up taking them over. They were ceded as territory in wars too...over and over again.

With a higher number in the minor races setting, you will find the program gives them the best systems and you can have the leftovers and the range is way beyond long range. Instead your colony ships terraform those neighbors where you have at least a trade relationship and their demeanor improves towards you, and they end up joining you through membership...or having improved them, you conquer them as the Cardassians by backstabbing.

[UesugiKenshin]

It's obvious that with few or no minor races, then you will have lots of systems to colonize. There is a dearth of systems to colonize even at 100% star systems which is peculiar. There are far too many gas giants. I think the long time German players (since before 2007 and back to 1999 when playing Birth of the Federation) label it a "bad card" meaning a poor map array ie very limited choices or when initially the player got assigned a homeworld, it was in a bad location on the map array. 40x40 is the number of sectors in the map array. The map is a general term. The array is talking about the composition of that map.

In a 4X strategy game, then you generally get a choice of maps or like BotE, a general settings in the set up. Each map offers different challenges and a good map designer doesn't just randomize, but there is a way to progress based on how the map is created. I really dislike map randomization...but it makes every game different. Some maps are not fun but chores and obstacles to overcome. All maps feature poor terrain that generates little wealth so driving some other mechanism to earn fresh to improve wealth...like a desert map but petroleum on it. That means limited settlements with poor growth so annoying.

There are rich systems and poor systems in terms of growth and resources. That drives conflict resolution as then other empires covet better systems to exploit for war or whatever the goal is for the game like a research victory.