is blitzin the only way to win for multiplayer?

Depends on what you mean by "blitzin". You don't have to build up a raider army and trash the map every game (in fact I wouldn't recommend it if you aren't confident in your micro skills), you can start out building riot and skirmisher units, and use them to protect constructors as they expand across the map, supplementing that expansion with defenses as you go. If your opponent tries raiding you out, but you have your riots and some radar to see things coming, you can basically do a defensive push to gain territory.

That being said, because resources in this game are spread across the map, and because there isn't a huge cost to acquiring them (apart from any costs you choose to pay to help defend them), spreading across the map quickly is important, you just don't necessarily have to be highly aggressive with your army in the process.

Yes, you absolutely have to be aggressive to get ahead because territory is income. Income means units and units are necessary for victory.

You usually want to use raiders to put pressure on your opponent from the outset so that you can deny them access to as much of the map as possible. This is what territorial control actually is - how much of the map have you made too dangerous for your opponent to reach? The metal extractors come after. Doing so maximises your own income and minimises theirs. This means you have more units and they have fewer which maximises your chance of success.

However, depending on the matchup, you may not even need to fire a shot. If you just have your guys close enough to threaten constructors, that might work by itself as they have to protect their own cons, which means more resources being diverted from their expansion.

You absolutely don't want to lean so heavily on military units that you neglect economy. One of the weaknesses of my game in the past was focussing so much on the front line that I forgot about energy and metal production. A player able to resist my early pressure could then push me back with raw economic power, no matter how fancy my micro.

You also absolutely do not want to squander your early units. You will be feeding your opponent metal (as they can reclaim them), which may offset any raw economic advantage you might have.

Since I take it "blitz" doesn't mean finding the optimal balance of military force and economic investment, you do not need to blitz to win. In fact you need a balanced strategy. That's hard to master, which is why most of us have had to put in a great deal of practice to get where we are.

It does feel painful as newbie to be on the receiving end of that, and it can look like you're just being rushed, but if you watch the replay, you will invariably find there is a lot more going on that you couldn't see when playing.

First off, thank you for the replies and comments.

What i mean by blitzin is how players rush out and about all over the map and mainly fight with mobs of bots and leave little to any to defense. On the few multiplayer matches i have played on, I see commanders make lots and lots of units and advance and in their path they may leave a lotus or two and some pickets. On the multiplayer matches i spectated it would seem everyone mainly uses units and rushes after one another. I hardly see any kind of entrenchment going on. rarely do i see the big guns come out to play. but like i said i'm rather new.

On the Co Op matches I've played nothing lasted longer that 20 minutes(maybe because how good the players are or because of the map) And again no entrenchment was had, unless somebody messed up and fell back to me(i'm usually the turtle) but that's happened like twice since i found Zero K.


It would seem in this player's opinion(and i am no where a vet in this) over half of the units and structures in this game are not used.

I Would like to have an item or a set of items that one could equip his commander for a defensive or offensive outlook(like an item which makes all units/structures 10% more damage absorbing/hp while at the same time 10% weaker damage output and vice versa for the offensive outlook) and like give the commander a limit of 5 of these for his suit.

But i am really too new here to give advice. Except please change the Submit post and Post comment tabs. i have had to re write this as i hit Post comment in stead of Submit post.

What you're calling blitzing really is the game of fighting for territory from the outset then, which very much is the essence of the game. More territory means more metal extractors, which means more income from which, if you need to, you can build the heavy units of the late game.

A 1v1 or small team game usually plays out in several phases (in any of which victory is possible).

The first stage is the raider phase. This cannot be other than an open, fluid phase because nobody has staked out any territorial claims yet (as the game has just started). It's about scouting your opponent, keeping him away from your vulnerable areas and only then about killing units.

There are actually three resources in this game, metal, energy and as CrazyEddie pointed out, time. A kill is only really valuable if it costs your opponent time to rectify. If I destroy your early expansion constructor, you not only lose the metal you invested in it, but also the time it takes to build another one and get it back out doing the job the original con was supposed to be doing. This is how raiders give me an advantage to press home.

By its end, the raider phase will have decided who holds what territory (and so who can start exploiting it). It might be the case that, due to a massive difference in skill and/or dumb luck (e.g. B737550 2 on Trojan Hills v05) one side gains such a big advantage that they can quickly end the game. Most of the time, neither side will have such a decisive advantage and the game will move on to the mid-game.

In the mid game, each side consolidates control over their outlying territory, which might include starting to build up more serious fortifications. Their economies will now be able to sustain production of heavier, more expensive units. With these, a more attritional game will start, where both sides probe for weak points to exploit (that weak point might even be their field army, depending on your respective compositions). Every mex you take provides more fuel for your war machine until eventually, you reach a tipping point and your opponent can no longer sustain a fight against you. At that point victory is just a matter of time (and trying not to do something stupid that throws the game).

You reach the late game if neither side can gain that attritional advantage. Your success in holding ground to this point provides the foundation on which to build your end game play. You should have linked up your holdings in an overdrive grid which is perhaps benefitting from the vast energy output of advanced geothermal or singularity reactors. With your advanced late game economy, you can create a vast field army, build that nuke silo or even a Zenith or Disco.

It is quite rare in small games for the late game to be reached. Usually one side makes a fatal mistake before then.

You do see it more in large team games (8v8+) which also tend to do away with the raider phase simply because they're more crowded, which means its harder to cost effectively deprive your opponents of time - you might take out one guy's constructor, but if the guy next to him has one nearby that survives, it can continue the interrupted work much sooner, and of course it's much easier to have evenly matched sides with a larger pool of players.


I've talked in pretty abstract terms so far, but consider these thoughts in particular:

1) Defences are not there to protect you. If you need substantial fortification in your base, you've probably already lost.
1 a) Yes, that goes for chicken defence too - your defences should be creating a killing field from which you can harvest resources.
1 b) Partial exception: if, on account of having scouted your opponent you've learned they're playing scythes more investment is justified. The point of scythes is to stab you in the back, so make your back uninviting - but don't go overboard. You still need a front.

2) Defences are there to enforce your claim to territory. Build them to control choke points, deter raiders from outlying resources or to tip the balance of power at the front in your favour.

3) Your goal in game isn't to build a Detriment or a big base. Your goal is victory. You and your opponent have exactly the same starting choices and resources. You must deprive them of theirs while expanding yours.

4) "Rushing after the other guy" is a massive over simplification. The raiding phase is the most tactical part of the game. You have limited resources, limited information about your opponent and need to make tough choices on how best to use them.

So then the only real play style is what all of you have described.

thank you all for the input.

quote: It would seem in this player's opinion(and i am no where a vet in this) over half of the units and structures in this game are not used.

Not seeing the value in defenses seems to be a common phase that people pass through while learning the game. From where I am sitting defenses are very powerful, especially Stinger. The fact that people plop down Lotus and Picket while expanding shows integral defenses are to the game, as they could easily skip defenses entirely. Here are some things that are good to know when using defenses:

• Defense is only as useful as what it protects. Defense in your main base is not that useful because it leaves most of your economy vulnerable. Defenses between your and your opponents bases defend everything behind them by blocking a path.
• Efficiently making forwards defenses requires mastery of constructor logistics. You need to make enough constructors and move them around your territory without much wasted walking time.
• Defenses are vulnerable while under construction so learn how to use priorities and multiple constructors.
• Defenses are a force multiplier for units. Having defenses in an area makes small armies able to beat back larger ones.
• Defenses can often be killed or circumvented when left unsupported. The presence of some units makes defenses cover more ground or be much more effective.
• If you don't pressure your opponent then they will just make economy and eventually overwhelm you. Some form of attacking/prodding your opponent is still required.
• Newton, Faraday, and Gauss have more niche uses. They are still highly valuable but, if you are just starting out, then learning Lotus, Stardust, Stinger is a good place to start.
• Desolator, Lucifer, and Cerberus are strider-level defenses. If a Dante would not be appropriate then there is a good chance these are not appropriate either.
• The best defenses project power by making it awkward for your opponent to move around the map. Defenses are a complete waste if they do not hinder your opponents access to parts of the map that they may reasonably want to access.

Just as units are not designed to be uniformly useful at all stages of the game, the types of defenses you should build will change over the course of a game. You should start by making a Minotaur about as often as you should start with a Stinger in your base. In my experience most units see use in Zero-K.

Just to calibrate us, do you call this game blitzin: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/741097

"you can make d-fence or you can play the game"

Some things to bear in mind:

• Your base is probably a lot less valuable than you think. It has your factory, some energy, and a few metal spots. Early on it needs to be protected because it's all you have. But factories and energy can be rebuilt anywhere, and there are a lot more metal spots outside your base than in it.
• Territory is probably a lot more valuable than you realize. For one thing, it has metal spots; taking territory is how you increase your income. But also, taking territory gives you map control. Map control is the ability to see what is happening within and near your territory and to respond to it with your forces. Controlling a large territory is more important for defending your base than building defenses in your base is. Base defenses can always be overcome by a prepared enemy; by contrast, map control allows you to determine the circumstances of the engagement. You choose the location of the battle, the composition of your forces, and the tactics to be employed. In a base defense all of those are chosen by your enemy.

These two things together mean that you should invest less in establishing and defending your base, and invest more in acquiring and defending your territory.