Tactic 05a: Fleet composition

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • I did a fast readtrough just now and corrected a lot of spelling errors, changed some bad phrasings etc.

      marshen: It wasn´t easy on the eye to read your comments since the quoted parts were very hard to separate from the suggested changes but I think I got most of your points (even if I don´t agree with them all). Parts that are quoted from you are in a different color.

      I think I´ve gotten rid of all the "I"s in the text, I agree they shouldn´t be there in a FAQ

      The summary wasn´t supposed to be a summary at all, but a conclusion. That has been changed now and I also changed the text a bit.

      Using dash (-) is not uncommon in english as far as I know. If they have been used incorrectly anywhere somone that is absolutely certain that it´s wrong may say so and I will change it.

      Yes, i.e. means "id est" but the translation into english isn´t all that good and that´s probably why the latin word commonly is used instead of "that is". Anyway that´s not something that needs to be changed.

      I don´t really see how espionage tech has anything to do with fleet ratios, so I´d rather leave that up to the guide(s) that´s supposed to explain that

      Abbrevations would normally be explained in some way in the text but in this case I feel that it would be better to make a completely separate thread with commonly used abbrevations and ogame terminology. That could come in handy for players whether they´re reading the rest of the guides or not. To understand everything that is said in CR threads for instance. This should be decided by the majority though, but that was my plan all along when leaving the explanations out.

      ...BS and the bomber usually a bit lower than that, if you decide to build them that is' << second part of this sentence is wrong That part of the sentence isn´t wrong. I did however use a period after "...than that" since it´s easier to read that way

      << 'After about a year the universe starts dying slowly...' Not really a good phrasing imo, but neither was mine so it has been changed

      - 'The same doesn´t really go for destroyers although having no destroyers at all late game is not recommended.' << ... all !in/on? the! late game       I´m actually not sure about this but I don´t think that my way is wrong. We´ll have to ask someone that knows for sure.

      << 'In the late game if you've been around since the beginning of the universe you are going to be superior than most of your opponents and that means that you will often crash them with only a part of your fleet and this is the time where battlecruisers come into play.' "superior than" is incorrect english, you are superior to someone. "only a part of your fleet" doesn´t exactly have the same meaning as "fraction" and the phrasing isn´t that good either. "this is the time where" should be "..time when"

      << after you farmed a player to death (which means gauss/plasma are destroyed) HF are the best choice because they destroy shields and use less deut than lf :P najics wrote something similar to this. This doesn´t really matter since it is already written in the guide that HFs are good when there are no gauss or plasmas. "Very rarely the best choice" still applies imo.

      - Cruisers << you may want to skip cruisers until you have a few bs via expeditions (spend the resources for somethin else in early game... agree on late game... you need a lot to break fodder) I´m not sure I agree with this. It depends a lot on how you´re playing. If you have no cruisers whatsoever you will have a lot harder time to raid/crash players that have fleets on the planets early game. Usually DFs won´t constitute a large part of your income, but the res behind the ships may. I think this should be decided by a majority of the users that reads the thread.

      - 'but if you´re mainly living off of other players fleets' << -off I´m fairly certain that "off of" is in fact correct. "living of other players..." is definitely incorrect

      - deu >> deuterium (btw i havent seen deu as a abbrevation for deuterium... only deut) I believe "deu" is commonly used in .org, but I may be wrong. In sweden we use "deut" But anyway, it isn´t important, i just changed it to "deuterium" everywhere.

      - 'Rips are also popular to raid turtles with in greater numbers, even though mostly miners use them in that way' <<'Deathstars in greater numbers are also popular to raid turtles' using only RIPs is boring. maybe sometimes we want to say deahstars :P and i dont see miners use rips... and even if some do so there are more fleeters that have rips       Normally you want consistensy in a text when referring to something to avoid confusion. But if more people want to have this changed it will be.

      - 'Miners using rips in this way often have enough defense to make it unprofitable for pretty much any fleet to attack the rips on the planet, eliminating the risk of blind phalanx.' << miners with rips and DEFENSE arent miners anymore! they are something between fleeter, turtle and miner. change this part in "players using..." I can go as far as to change it to miner/turtles. However what you call these players isn´t really interesting since it´s completely beside the point. Anyway "Players using.." in that sentence would be completely wrong since most players wouldn´t be attacking with rips from a planet.

      - 'no-loss' << 'no loss' I´m not so sure that I´m incorrect here. The exact meaning of "no-loss" with a dash isn´t the same as "no loss" to me. "no-loss" is an expression and no loss is just describing that you didn´t lose anything. It´s really hard to explain how I´m thinking but I will ask someone that knows for sure.


      I haven´t replied to everything, but I have read it. Anyway, a lot of what you are proposing as improvements I now for a fact is incorrect english. So I don´t really feel that you should be proofreading this. I´d rather leave it up to a native speaker

    • I haven´t replied to everything, but I have read it. Anyway, a lot of what you are proposing as improvements I now for a fact is incorrect english. So I don´t really feel that you should be proofreading this. I´d rather leave it up to a native speaker
      ---------------------------------------------

      now=/= know

      <_<
      >_>

      that's all i have to say at this point, it's 4 am and it's late for a serious post, but it's never late for some spam and light trolling :P

    • I think it pretty much goes without saying that the probes should be built as fast as possible. Anyway, that will be explained in much greater detail in the "start-up guide" or whatever it´s called :P

      I hope we have a native speaker that´s willing to proofread, there´s probably going to be a lot of errors in all the FAQs if we don´t <_<

    • i used to do the translations checks for the basic tutorials, but i'm not a native speaker..

      /me stares at Son Goku

      he's sooo english, i lost confidence in my knowledge of english when i met him ;) and now we have him on the FAQ team ;)

    • Najics wrote:

      i used to do the translations checks for the basic tutorials, but i'm not a native speaker..

      /me stares at Son Goku

      he's sooo english, i lost confidence in my knowledge of english when i met him ;) and now we have him on the FAQ team ;)


      >_>

      Read and correct a few small grammar errors, otherwise perfect :)