Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

crystallurgy tech tree.
Dont forget that the crystallurgy has the Energy Dampener, which is not to be ignored, and the High-Energy Magnifier, which is though being high in the technology tree and research-costly is one of the best weapons in the game IMO.

edit: oleg, thats a good point. once again though, rock-scissor-paper. CA is more useful against most other weapons.

[ November 29, 2002, 23:25: Message edited by: Taera ]

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Well, without the pre-regeneration the OA regen rates seem a little low don't they? Level 3 only gets you 30 points of regeneration... that's only 1/3 to 1/4 of the damage put out by a decent weapon at about the same level (in terms of research points cost to acheive the level that is). At least with the pre-regeneration, while whacky conceptually, you could gain a slight edge by engaging late by building slower ships.
I'd just put on more shields now and forget about wasting my research points on both shields and (relatively useless) organic armor.

just my thoughts

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

OA is still extremely cheap, costs organics, and also results in faster build times compared to ships with shields. More importantly, they don't have to worry about shield-damaging weapons, which really cut even high-tech phased shields down to size. Also, if you compare the organic regen rate and cost to say, a shield regenerator in the standard game, it is a big advantage. Especially if you pile lots of OA on a large ship, and then give it a movement strategy such as Max Range, which in a fleet action will tend to have it retreat every other turn (or more if you use long-reload weapons), giving it time to heal while other ships fight in the front lines.

PvK

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unless it gets clobbered by a heavy-mount Ionic Disperser before it can retreat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

The problem is the ratio of the damage each armor can absorb to the damage that weapons, especially weapons using mounts, can deal per turn. Modding OA to be larger and have more regen per component could help to balance this out and make it more effective. But then it becomes harder to use with small ships. A mount for armor is now possible but cannot adjust the regen rate. Hmm....

I think the ratio of weapon damage to component damage in the whole game is 'out of balance' anyway. We need to boost damage of all components or reduce damage of all weapons, or something.... Once you get more than 4 or 5 ships in a battle it's just too easy to concentrate fire on one ship and blow it to bits instantly. That sort of stunt should require a major difference in tech level or a really huge difference in forces or ship size. Or total surprise, but that can't be properly factored in without an initiative system.

[ December 02, 2002, 04:08: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Talking about armor - which is hit first: armor or shields? Any difference for OA or CA or scattering armor etc.?

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Unless the enemy is using shield-skipping weapons shields are always hit first. Shield regeneration from either internal regenerators or crystalline armor can make for complicated damage (re)distribution, though.

It would be interesting if emissive armor could work 'with' shields, wouldn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif A minimum threshold for damage to shields would make them much stronger.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Yes, emissive shields would be interesting.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Armor, as far as I know. But then again, what to I know?!

That question is rhetorical! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Basically it is how shields work in Moo2. I liked it.