Lets talk guns

Lets talk guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series

Message

DWA86 -> Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 1:51:41 AM)
Searched didn't really find what I was looking for. Weapons...at this point it seems to me you want titan beams and torpedoes and their may not be much point in doing much else. Is this an accurate observation or am I missing so points on this? What weapons do you find effective?

Darkspire -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 1:57:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DWA86 Searched didn't really find what I was looking for. Weapons...at this point it seems to me you want titan beams and torpedoes and their may not be much point in doing much else. Is this an accurate observation or am I missing so points on this? What weapons do you find effective? Make that Phasers and Torpedoes and you are pretty much a force to be reckoned with, Titan beams are no where near as effective as Phasers. Darkspire

DWA86 -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 2:01:56 AM)
I imagine missles are really rather ineffective and the graviton weapons have too slow of a rate of fire and range?

Darkspire -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 2:34:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DWA86 I imagine missles are really rather ineffective and the graviton weapons have too slow of a rate of fire and range? Playing as a prewarp empire the missiles are great at the start, get them up to Concussion ASAP and there great until you get up to Shockwave on torpedo. Gave up with Graviton when the AOE weapons were nerfed a few revisions ago because of naysayers on here due to there game inexperience and the damage it caused there friendly forces, they completely ruined the new AOE additions in Shadows and quite a large part of the game for me by constantly moaning about the damage, had they known how to use them they are a very effective, fun to watch and design with weapon. Sad to say they are all now next to useless, they used to be great fun both in use and design. Best place for them used to be mines, they could hold off small fleets on there own, now any mine with them fitted just sits there getting shot at, they do fire but not very often and with nowhere near the damage radius they had, more often than not the mine is destroyed, what's easier to replace a mine on a much needed resource sitting in a system on its own or a few ships? As long as your ships are fairly well shielded and, even better, fitted with robotic repairs the casualties were minimum. Darkspire

DWA86 -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 5:44:25 AM)
since you mentioned mines sever times minefields would be awesome. Area denial in your enemies systems and such

Canute0 -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 6:42:14 AM)
Missiles are the 1. choise when you combine them with Boarding pod to capture ships/station. They got the best range at the beginning that mean you can shoot down strong pirate base shields from the distance and run in to capture the base. Graviton Beams are a great defence weapon for Mining station and construction ship. They bypass shield complete and damage the attacker. And damaged attacker abbort their attack and head back for repairs. As regular combat weapon they are very underpowered, you rarely can kill any ship except you got a lucky hit and damage the hyperengine or use hyperdeny to prevent them from warp. Railgun are another good defence weapon for station, and a very deadly attacking weapon special at the beginning when the armor is weak. But they got the shortest range of all you allways need to combine them with tractor beams or add some extra engines.

CyclopsSlayer -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 7:46:08 AM)
Lately I use JUST Torpedoes and Fighters, and have little issue with any battles. Has the advantage of only 2 tech trees to be developed. Missiles, while they achieve the long range category, their damage efficiency is pathetic comparatively late game. Mass drivers, Gravitic, Bombs, I find myself doing without and not missing the lack. Phasers are the only way to go off the Beam track, and are pathetic as standoff weapons.

Darkspire -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 8:30:34 AM)
A theoretical discussion seems to be in order then [:)] Missiles It seems would be better if they were improved, speed and damage? Range seems to be okay though? Beam Weapons Phasers seem to be the best in that catergory? How could the category be improved? Torpedoes Nuff said? Thoughts on other weapon categories and what would make them better? Obviously within the constraints that are there at present, so it would be ideas on how to best improve what we already have. Darkspire

Canute0 -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 2:42:21 PM)
quote: Missiles It seems would be better if they were improved, speed and damage? Range seems to be okay though? Don't forget they don't got a damage reduction at range, they are allways doing the full damage. That made them extremly useful at max. range when you attack stong bases at example. But at the endgame their range could be improved compared to torpedos. Racial weapons: They are very powerful at the beginning, but at the endgame they arn't worth it anymore.

CyclopsSlayer -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/25/2013 6:40:14 PM)
Okay, did a Goggle Docs sheet comparing Damage / Time / Size of the various weapons. So far I haven't added Area Weapons, Fighters and Racial Weapons. Check out - Distant Worlds Weapon Comparisons The sheet is unlocked so feel free to correct or add your own comparisons Rough Conclusions; - The Titan beam is superior to the Phaser Lance in every way. Cheaper to R&D, smaller, Faster firing, even the Phaser bonuses can't bring it even. - The Torpedo even before considering the Missile penalties is superior, add in the 50% reduction versus armored targets and the Missile sucks. - Mass Driver... your race must be subject to Mass Insanity to use it. - by the above it looks like Titan Beams in close, and Torpedoes at range are the only systems worthy of consideration.

DWA86 -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/26/2013 6:19:11 AM)
I would suggest there is a hole in capital ship grade weaponry. A large weapon system you could only fit a small amount on a large ship that does massive damage. A true ship buster. Also if you desire smaller ships to be desirable you need a dogdeable high damage weapon smaller ships can avoid yet use to effect on larger ships. Missiles really should have some options for more effectiveness. Fission/quantum/fusion/hyper fusion warheads, maybe a magnetically acceleratition missile, hybrid of rail gun and missile. I would say more range, missiles seem to simply be a less effective version of torpedoes

Darkspire -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/26/2013 7:28:26 AM)
quote: The Titan beam is superior to the Phaser Lance in every way. Cheaper to R&D, smaller, Faster firing, even the Phaser bonuses can't bring it even. It may be on paper but in use is more akin to firing a water pistol against late game spaceport shields, I tend to use a fleet of 10 capitals with the best tech available in my attack fleets and when I worked through the weapons I found the Titan Beam pretty much useless in that situation, which is one of the main uses for the fleets, Phasers on the other hand cut through the spaceport like a hot knife through butter. Add Plasma Thunderbolts to the mix and it's a killer combo. quote: I would suggest there is a hole in capital ship grade weaponry. A large weapon system you could only fit a small amount on a large ship that does massive damage. A true ship buster. Also if you desire smaller ships to be desirable you need a dogdeable high damage weapon smaller ships can avoid yet use to effect on larger ships. Missiles really should have some options for more effectiveness. Fission/quantum/fusion/hyper fusion warheads, maybe a magnetically acceleratition missile, hybrid of rail gun and missile. I would say more range, missiles seem to simply be a less effective version of torpedoes quote: Obviously within the constraints that are there at present, so it would be ideas on how to best improve what we already have. Missile range starting value is 520(Lv1) and the Plasma Thunderbolt is at 690 (Lv5), as that gets scaled as the tech level increases that may need looking at from the point of view of damage reduction over distance from the torpedo compared to the no damage loss of the missile, if the missile does not have damage reduction and the torpedo does over distance do the two level out somewhere? Could increasing the distance of the missile throw the two out of balance? Darkspire

CyclopsSlayer -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/26/2013 2:08:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darkspire Missile range starting value is 520(Lv1) and the Plasma Thunderbolt is at 690 (Lv5), as that gets scaled as the tech level increases that may need looking at from the point of view of damage reduction over distance from the torpedo compared to the no damage loss of the missile, if the missile does not have damage reduction and the torpedo does over distance do the two level out somewhere? Could increasing the distance of the missile throw the two out of balance? Darkspire By the comparison I was doing, even at both weapons maximum ranges, 990, the Torpedo is superior against unarmored targets, but not by much. At 1000+ range the Missile would be better, but nothing has that range. If the Target is armored, as most Base/Ports likely are, the Missile become inconsequential versus the Torpedo. Maybe they need to increase the Range penalty that Torpedo's have, improve Missile to have some base bombardment capability, or something. As it stands the Missiles offer nothing over the Torpedo. Regarding Titan vs. Phasers, maybe versus the bases Armor, but versus the Shields?? Lets see, albeit on paper, you can mount 6 Titans Beams in the same space used by 4 Phasers. The Titan beams have 3x the Rate of Fire. So in the same 4.2 seconds the Phasers need for a single cycle of 4 shots, the Titan Beams will fire 18 shots. So at range 0 that would be 522 damage for the Titans versus 128 for the Phasers. Now if we move that range out to the max 500 category, the Phasers hit for the same 128, the Titans 18 shots would deal 162 raw damage. Still more, even considering the bonus to hit for the Phasers. At max range the top Reactive armor will essentially stop the Titans totally, and the Phasers are easily superior there. But in closer, say 300 range the two beams are essentially identical. Any closer than that and the Titan wins hands down.

Tcby -> RE: Lets talk guns (12/31/2013 8:07:49 PM)
If it's not too much trouble, could somebody please explain to me the difference between current and previous AOE weapons? I'm new to the game, and I wonder whether there is a slight change I can make (thank you devs for modding tools) that will allow them to be a viable weapon choice. I prefer it when every option is good for something [:)]

Darkspire -> RE: Lets talk guns (1/1/2014 12:25:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tcby If it's not too much trouble, could somebody please explain to me the difference between current and previous AOE weapons? I'm new to the game, and I wonder whether there is a slight change I can make (thank you devs for modding tools) that will allow them to be a viable weapon choice. I prefer it when every option is good for something [:)] There is no way to fix the AOE weapons, it is hardcoded [:(] Image 1 is the current AOE damage on a mine attacking a fleet of pirates, note the position of the ships. Image 2 is the old AOE damage (pre .09) on a mine attacking a fleet of pirates, note the position of the ships. The new 'nerfed' AOE weapons do fire but not very often, usually the mine just sits there now and gets blown to bits most of the time. The old AOE could hold off small fleets of pirates, was great fun to watch and create designs for. Its what the community wanted with all the posts to tone them down due to the damage, funny how all the folks that were complaining about them do not post any more ... totally ruined it for us that have put the time in to learn the game and enjoy the challenge [8\|] Darkspire [image]http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l588/Necrospire/Secret%20Squiggle/AOEbroken2_zps2a39f84f.jpg[/image] [image]http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l588/Necrospire/Secret%20Squiggle/AOEbroken3_zpsbd7b7cf6.jpg[/image]

Tcby -> RE: Lets talk guns (1/1/2014 3:10:35 AM)
....Damn Thanks for the explanation Darkspire[&o]

Plant -> RE: Lets talk guns (1/3/2014 3:11:20 PM)
Someone mentioned that titan beams are nowhere as effective as phasors. That is definately not true. Even at maximum phasor range, the titan beams do more damage per size than phasors do, ignoring accuracy and armour. And then you can always tell your ships to move to Point Blank range. End tech missiles is a bit funny compared to torpedoes, but I guess that is deliberate.

Deathball -> RE: Lets talk guns (1/3/2014 4:03:14 PM)
Has anyone done some calculations on dps/size in regards to energy consumption? After all, torpedoes/phasers have considerably higher energy requirements so it would be interesting to see how their dps/size holds up if you factor in reactor size.

ASHBERY76 -> RE: Lets talk guns (1/3/2014 4:05:15 PM)
Errr Area weapons were never used by the A.I before because of friendly fire so they just became another human exploit more than a fair weapon system.The A.I can now use them too. I still post too.

CyclopsSlayer -> RE: Lets talk guns (1/3/2014 10:14:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deathball Has anyone done some calculations on dps/size in regards to energy consumption? After all, torpedoes/phasers have considerably higher energy requirements so it would be interesting to see how their dps/size holds up if you factor in reactor size. I didn't factor in energy as endgame reactors make it trivial. The equivalent endgame reactor; Advanced Hyper Fusion Reactor Size - 16 Energy Output - 260 Fuel per 1000 energy - 2.52 (Hydrogen) So using Torpedoes, a single reactor will power 4 Torps, that raises the effective size of the Torp launcher from 12 -> 16. A single Fuel Cell will when full provide sufficient fuel to fire 744 Torpedoes, or sufficient fuel for 90 seconds of continuous fire for 4 launchers. Effective Weapon Size factoring in Energy needed for continuous fire; (rounded up to full spaces) Titan Beams - Sz 8 Phaser - Sz 11 Torpedo - Sz 16 Missile - Sz 15 Mass Driver - Sz 19

Tcby -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 12:35:29 AM)
Perhaps it is time to resurrect this thread. What changes can be made with the new tools to improve weapon balance? I understand that this is also being discussed to some extend in the DWU Balance Mod, but I think there is some benefit to brainstorming the topic without being tied to the vision of any particular person.

Timotheus -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 12:45:38 AM)
Torps are a bit OP as of now. They should be slowed down and be more easily intercepted/shot down by point defense. They should have small area effect explosion, so that when PD shoots them down they explode and do some damage to whatever's nearby. Torps range should be very much shorter than missiles. Missiles are fine as is. But in my experience fighters rule - to the point that when designing my warships I stick a fighter bay into each and (a warship needs a weapon, gaem sez) fine, stick 1 maxos blaster or whatever on it. Note that you DO NOT NEED carriers to effectively have carriers in game, and a fleet of 10 rather smallish warships with 1 long range lazor or maxos blasta but each having a fighter bay is OP as [censored]. When you have both torps and fighters, look out, universe. Sticking fighter bays into non-carrier type warships should not be allowed by game, needs a hard lock - otherwise way too easy.

ldog -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 1:33:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Timotheus Torps are a bit OP as of now. They should be slowed down and be more easily intercepted/shot down by point defense. They should have small area effect explosion, so that when PD shoots them down they explode and do some damage to whatever's nearby. Torps range should be very much shorter than missiles. Missiles are fine as is. But in my experience fighters rule - to the point that when designing my warships I stick a fighter bay into each and (a warship needs a weapon, gaem sez) fine, stick 1 maxos blaster or whatever on it. Note that you DO NOT NEED carriers to effectively have carriers in game, and a fleet of 10 rather smallish warships with 1 long range lazor or maxos blasta but each having a fighter bay is OP as [censored]. When you have both torps and fighters, look out, universe. Sticking fighter bays into non-carrier type warships should not be allowed by game, needs a hard lock - otherwise way too easy. I'd say it's less torps are OP than that late tech missiles have nothing to recommend them over torps. Beam weapons are still plenty useful. Point defense only works against fighters in DW. They shouldn't work against torps since they are energy weapons. They should work against missiles but that would make missiles even more useless, so it is possibly that way for game balance. I don't think fighters are OP either, it is more a matter that the AI designs don't have enough PD & fighters themselves. No matter what though the player is going to be able to design better ships than the AI since the AI works from more or less fixed designs. The rail guns seem to suck completely, but then I haven't really given them much chance. What few I've had were on derelict ships and I have not been impressed. Area weapons are always situational and seem more useful for flavor than from an efficiency standpoint, but then I know there are people around here who tailor their strategy around them to great effect. quote: ORIGINAL: CyclopsSlayer quote: ORIGINAL: Deathball Has anyone done some calculations on dps/size in regards to energy consumption? After all, torpedoes/phasers have considerably higher energy requirements so it would be interesting to see how their dps/size holds up if you factor in reactor size. I didn't factor in energy as endgame reactors make it trivial. The equivalent endgame reactor; Advanced Hyper Fusion Reactor Size - 16 Energy Output - 260 Fuel per 1000 energy - 2.52 (Hydrogen) So using Torpedoes, a single reactor will power 4 Torps, that raises the effective size of the Torp launcher from 12 -> 16. A single Fuel Cell will when full provide sufficient fuel to fire 744 Torpedoes, or sufficient fuel for 90 seconds of continuous fire for 4 launchers. Effective Weapon Size factoring in Energy needed for continuous fire; (rounded up to full spaces) Titan Beams - Sz 8 Phaser - Sz 11 Torpedo - Sz 16 Missile - Sz 15 Mass Driver - Sz 19 From your posts and a quick look at your spreadsheet, it would seem you are not taking DPS into account. DPS isn't the be all end all but it does make apples to apples comparisons easier.

Aeson -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 1:49:34 AM)
quote: Has anyone done some calculations on dps/size in regards to energy consumption? After all, torpedoes/phasers have considerably higher energy requirements so it would be interesting to see how their dps/size holds up if you factor in reactor size. As a matter of fact, yes. This was originally posted in the Guide to Armor thread over in the War Room, but here are the relevant bits for what you're asking: Alpha Strike Damage Range: 000 100 200 300 400 500 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Titan Beam (alpha) 4.24 3.65 3.07 2.48 1.90 1.32 Titan Beam (cont.) 4.01 3.46 2.90 2.35 1.80 1.24 Phaser Lance (alpha) 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 Phaser Lance (cont.) 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 Mix 3.73 3.38 3.02 2.66 2.30 1.95 Continuous DPS Range: 000 100 200 300 400 500 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Titan Beam (cont.) 2.86 2.47 2.07 1.68 1.28 0.89 Titan Beam (alpha) 2.07 1.79 1.50 1.21 0.93 0.64 Phaser Lance (cont.) 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Phaser Lance (alpha) 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Mix 2.12 1.87 1.61 1.36 1.10 0.85 Weapon Set Sizes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Titan Beam (alpha) Titan Beam (cont.) Phaser Lance (alpha) Phaser Lance (cont.) Mix Size: 130 94 97 178 112 Mix is 10 Titan Beams and 4 Phaser Lances. Titan (alpha) is 19 Titan Beams, Titan (cont.) is 13 Titan Beams, Phaser (cont.) is 18 Phaser Lances, Phaser (alpha) is 9 Phaser Lances. Done assuming maximum research in Titan Beams, Phaser Lances, and Hyperfusion Reactors, and assumes that you've used exactly 1 HyperFusion Reactor to support every such set of weapons. Note that this may vary a bit depending on how many reactors you actually carry on a real design; these numbers assume that you lose any 'extra' capacity from the reactors supporting static/engine/shield loads and the fact that reactors rarely support exactly N weapons. For the curious, the maximum number of supportable Titan Beams or Phaser Lances for various reactors is given below. The output limit gives you the maximum number of weapons you can fire continuously, while the storage limit gives you the maximum number of weapons you can fire simultaneously, say at the start of the engagement. Weapon Quantum Reactor 3 Fusion 3 HyperFusion 3 Limit by: output storage output storage output storage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phaser Lance 3 12.6 5.7 8.7 4.5 18.8 9.3 Titan Beam 3 8.8 11.8 6.0 9.3 13.0 19.3

pycco -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 2:26:16 AM)
lol, love these types of threads. a set of weapons is only scratching the surface, there are a lot of factors energy use,defenses,speed,thrusters,size of ship,what is required of ship design,what you are fighting,cost,upkeep,total tech cost,resources need per component. all of these play a role in what makes a weapon good. "good" is defined by what is "bad". love your graphs though very informative.

ldog -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 2:50:18 AM)
Interesting chart Aeson. Does it take into account the difference in phaser vs armor as opposed to the titan? (I'm guessing not) Granted I didn't own Shadows until Universe and I haven't played in some time, but my experience has been at this point it's irrelevant since you just need to design better ships than the AI, which even if you are both maxed out on tech is easy to do. This would be more relevant if it were a multiplayer game. So late game design choices are more about "style". You have a lot of choice on how to lay your ships out AND still be better than your opposition. Myself I like a mix of phasers, torps, fighters and the odd special weapon but lately I have been mixing phasers and beams (been not interested enough to crunch numbers like you have, but observed in play what your chart shows, that a mix is pretty effective under any conditions) The hard choices for midgame all come down to size limits. Ships are smaller, reactors aren't putting out as much power, you need more of everything not weapons to get a given range/maneuverability/speed/defenses than you do late game. To me before size 500 is when ship design is the least forgiving. The chart you put up in the shatterforce laser thread is far more interesting, since you calculated DPS/component size which really is the more deciding factor early to midgame.

Aeson -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 4:00:45 AM)
quote: lol, love these types of threads. I tend to agree with the sentiment of your post. The threads tend not to really produce anything terribly useful, but are frequently rather amusing. quote: Does it take into account the difference in phaser vs armor as opposed to the titan? (I'm guessing not) Of course it doesn't. If it took into account the effects of armor, I'd have to answer, at minimum, the questions of "how much armor" and "what kind of armor," because if I 'accounted for armor' you really need to know what kind of armor I accounted for. If I were reading it and it said that armor had been accounted for, I'd also want to know how I factored in the armor effects - what distribution did I assume for the number of shots to break the armor? Gaussian? Uniform? Something else? For that matter, once you get into the details of figuring out the impact of armor on weapon DPS per size unit, what about the other aspects of ship design? What relative amounts of shield generators, armor, and other components did I assume? How about shield regeneration? Did I deduct that from the effective DPS of the attacking weapons? (The answer is "no," by the way.) Did I consider the impact on weapon effectiveness due to only about half the Phaser Lances for Phaser (cont.) taking part in the alpha strike? (Again, no.) Have I considered how the game allocates reactor output (e.g. will the game sacrifice cruise speed to fire more of the weapons if I put too many on the ship)? (Once again, no.) If you want a bit of discussion about how armor factors into things, I would suggest looking into the Guide to Armor thread over in the War Room section of the forum. I would also tend to say that if you have sufficient available research, then you'd be better off using some kind of mixed Titan Beam and Phaser Lance configuration than going purely for one or the other, as the Titan Beam offers superior raw DPS per size unit at all ranges but the Phaser Lance provides superior armor-penetration. Superior raw DPS per size unit means that the Titan Beam is better at bringing down shields and destroying unarmored hulls than the Phaser Lance is, but it pays for it with its lesser armor penetration and its range-dependent performance. Exactly what an 'ideal' mix is would depend greatly on exactly what you're facing; the mix given in the mixed weapon set is just a simple energy balance trying to get an alpha strike that uses all the available stored energy and sustained fire that uses all the available reactor output, rather than some detailed analysis of 'optimal' balances of armor penetration and raw DPS. quote: The chart you put up in the shatterforce laser thread is far more interesting, since you calculated DPS/component size which really is the more deciding factor early to midgame. First, those charts above are DPS per unit size - I just factored in the reactors required to power the weapons. DPS per unit size for the Titan Beam III is something like 3.5 at range 0 and something like 0.84 for the Phaser Lance III if you exclude the reactors. Second, even in the mid-game, you will most likely have enough space to include at least one reactor whose only purpose is to feed the weapons, and more isn't entirely out of the picture. As such, the results in the charts given above are similarly applicable to ship design as the chart given in the Shatterforce Laser thread; these ones just include a little of the overhead that weapons require. Theoretical DPS per size unit when excluding the reactor also doesn't change that much - a HyperFusion Reactor is only 16 size units, which is perhaps 20% of the smaller weapon sets used. The bigger difference is that Titan Beam IIIs and Phaser Lance IIIs are much more 'end-game' weapons than Shatterforce Lasers and Epsilon Torpedoes are, although I would argue that the Shatterforce Laser III, which is what the chart in the Shatterforce Laser thread is for, isn't significantly less end-game than the Phaser Lance III or any form of Titan Beam. In particular, I would generally not pick up Shatterforce Laser IIIs unless I felt a need to upgrade the weapons on existing ships without necessitating a refit, or unless I had nothing more interesting to research (such as some tech which isn't an immediate dead-end). A more detailed analysis could include the number of fuel cells that you'd add to the design to give a reasonable estimated combat time on station, or you could do a full-blown design analysis with a mandatory base set of components which leaves X space available for weapons and supporting reactors, and currently has Y spare reactor output and Z reactor storage - after all, if you know you're aiming for a size-500 ship, and you know you want 20 cruise speed and 15 deg/s turning rate, you already know most of what you want to put into the ship, even if you haven't realized it yet. The only questions left to answer at that point are "would I rather use weapon set A or weapon set B to fill the X space that my design can give to weapons and supporting reactors, and how do I want to share this leftover space with shields and armor?" Might even only need to answer the question about weapons, if you have target shield and armor values (maybe you like having 1000 shields and 10 armor plates on your size-500 ships, or something like that). Of course, you also only "need" to answer these questions if you're looking for some kind of optimization; throwing whatever you feel like adding on generally works well enough that these kinds of optimization questions do not necessarily need answers. quote: The chart you put up in the shatterforce laser thread is far more interesting, since you calculated DPS/component size which really is the more deciding factor early to midgame. Just be aware that DPS per component size can be deceptive. There's a big difference between a 2 DPS per size unit weapon that costs 5 space and uses 10 energy per shot, and a 2 DPS per size unit weapon that costs 15 space and uses 40 energy per shot, and both are much different from a 2 DPS per size unit weapon that costs 10 space and uses 20 energy per shot, and a lot of that difference comes from how the weapons interact with the reactors. That's not a side of the story that the Shatterforce Laser thread's charts touch upon to any great extent.

unclean -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 4:27:06 AM)
Check this out: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2686169 Get the attachment and you can see DPS/size, energy use/size, damage vs armor, all that good stuff. Anyways, this thread needs more love for missiles. I like seeding a lot of advanced empires into my games, and if you're started wars with them early on nothing even comes close to letting you kill fleets and starbases without taking a scratch like missiles can. Key is getting a critical mass of cheap frigates that are basically just missiles and engines duct taped together - it doesn't matter that you do crap damage when nothing can catch you, and anything that does gets instantly focus fired down anyways. Couple bulkier ships to draw fire if you get jumped helps too. Anyways, try it out. It's one of those things that wouldn't work as well against an actual player, but the AI is utterly helpless against it.

Spidey -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 5:11:34 AM)
Regarding that spreadsheet, Unclean, what do you mean with "damage vs armor"? Is that simply post-reactive damage or did you go probabilistic and actually crack how many shots it takes on average on a given range to kill armor plates? That said, the pictures make it look like nice work. I'll probably download and check it out once I'm not really tired. [:)]

unclean -> RE: Lets talk guns (6/4/2014 6:16:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Spidey Regarding that spreadsheet, Unclean, what do you mean with "damage vs armor"? Is that simply post-reactive damage or did you go probabilistic and actually crack how many shots it takes on average on a given range to kill armor plates? That said, the pictures make it look like nice work. I'll probably download and check it out once I'm not really tired. [:)] It's the first, that's pretty much all that was known when it was made. I'm actually reading that armor guide for the first time right now :]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.171875