Re: Torpedo question
 

That only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No. That is only an issue IF the APB using fleet has maximum range strategies set (which is NOT the default strategy). Otherwise, the ships will always move in close before they fire (especially since the secondary movement type for optimal range is point blank...), rarely actually firing at range 8 (unless there are so many ships that they can not get closer, of course). Using Max Range is only a good idea if you are using missiles or if you have the religious Talisman, or if you have a severe advantage in combat bonuses (such as a few levels ahead in the CS/ECM race, and having large racial combat bonuses)

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm, I tested and got the opposite (of course!)

I made battleships, fairly usual loadout (speed 10, 480kt of weapons (8 Heavy PPBs vs 6 Heavy Quantum Torps), 3 phased-shields V, and both def armors.

Tried them out in the simulator... with 25 and then 50 ships per side. I then swapped sides in case that mattered, and did it over again. PPBs won ~ 38 out of 40 fights...

[ November 12, 2003, 23:38: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: Torpedo question
 

Perhaps you should test based on equal costs of ships on each side, rather than just equal tonnage of weapons? Give each side as many ships as they can build for 200,000 resources (total), for example.

Re: Torpedo question
 

actually, my tests were early attempts to find a workable counter to rage's designs - they were the first to use PPB & NSP from early on till end game. I've found out that cost-wise only torpedoes could realy defeat those ships (tests included armor, of course, as well as phased shields and maxed tech)

Re: Torpedo question
 

NSP is a weak weapon to begin with, only useful in a minor support role. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not sure about this. One hit from a massive mount NSP can fry the interior of most ships, leaving the empty armour shell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It does not really mater how good and powerfull was that ship. It is a toast in just one shot.

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I used 1,000,000 resources as the base:

If you include all resources, then the torps win 4 out of 5 times (44 PPB ships vs 56 Torp ships).

If you just compare mineral costs, then PPB ships win most of the time (60 PPB ships vs 63 Torp ships).

Question is, then, how much the Rads cost hold up your ship production. Although also important: you might be able to build a decent torp ship one turn quicker than a decent PPB ship just based on the mineral difference (for my tests, PPBs ship cost 17,550 and Torp ships cost 15800. At that point in the game, my shipyards are usually building at about 4500, so the likely answer for me is no...)

Torps did better than I thought they would, but I still think they could use a boost, especially if you factor in their research cost...

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not sure about this. One hit from a massive mount NSP can fry the interior of most ships, leaving the empty armour shell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It does not really mater how good and powerfull was that ship. It is a toast in just one shot. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But that requires using Baseships, which are extremely innefficient... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And then, the weapon can not fire again for what, 3 more rounds? Think of how much more damage "normal" weapons could do in that time. Even though they have to get through shields (and armor, which is nothing) first, a shield depleter or two will take care of that nicely.

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I used 1,000,000 resources as the base:

If you include all resources, then the torps win 4 out of 5 times (44 PPB ships vs 56 Torp ships).

If you just compare mineral costs, then PPB ships win most of the time (60 PPB ships vs 63 Torp ships).

Question is, then, how much the Rads cost hold up your ship production. Although also important: you might be able to build a decent torp ship one turn quicker than a decent PPB ship just based on the mineral difference (for my tests, PPBs ship cost 17,550 and Torp ships cost 15800. At that point in the game, my shipyards are usually building at about 4500, so the likely answer for me is no...)

Torps did better than I thought they would, but I still think they could use a boost, especially if you factor in their research cost... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Now test those torp ships against APBs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And do some MBs for good measure.

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How can they do anydamage if they are all dead in one round ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">he DeadDireWolf, in multiplayer games there is no tactical combat, all combats are done by the computer. this means that "we", hm, no, actually: them, are only talking about computer resolved combats.

Re: Torpedo question
 

Now it all makes sense.

Do you guys play against the computer at all anymore?

Also, is there anyway to rename the entire system or do you have to do it one at a time with the 'name' button?

Re: Torpedo question
 

I do by nature still play single player because I know no one else who plays the game other than the people here and one friend. But hot seat play is kinda boring.

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How can they do anydamage if they are all dead in one round ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because you will only destroy all of the enemy if you outnumber them and vastly outgun them... and NSP don't have that great of a range, combined with being on really slow ships, so you will rarely get to fire first, unless you fight defensively at a WP, which is not that common of an occurance in most situations.

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ran some more tests, all on Optimal Firing Range (Nearest, Has Weaps, Most Damaged, Strongest):

Based on Tonnage alone (50 battleships)
APB beat MB beat PPB beat Torp beat Null Space. (That's right, MB beat PPB. Never would have guessed that... MB won 6 out of 10).

Based on 1,000,000 resources (inc organic and rads), I had the following ship totals:
Torp: 56
APB: 53
MB: 50
PPB: 44
NSP: 36

APB beat everything (again)
MB beat Torps and PPB and NSP
Torps beat PPB and NSP
PPB beat NSP
NSP didn't beat anything

Re: Torpedo question
 

spoon now you should break it down to 80% torp and 20% NSP etc.... for 1 million points... And see what combo will take on the APB and or Last the longest

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This looks like a perfect case to set up a genetic algorithm and vary the fleets a bit, have them fight, vary the winners, rinse, repeat as needed.

Re: Torpedo question
 

im sorry guys, but i dont think you can algorithm this game, as it is simply the reflection of player's mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Torpedo question
 

nice experiment spoon, but how strong were those ships armoured? as NSP is only good against heavy shielded/armored ships.

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I used a fairly common design:
1 bridge, 2 life support, 2 crew quarters
5 jacketed photon engines III
1 solar sail III
1 ECM III
1 Combat Sensors III
1 Multiplex Tracking V
1-2 Point Defense V (some ships had 20kt extra, so I filled it with PD)
1 Stealth Armor III
1 Scattering Armor III
3 Phased Shield Gen III
400 - 420 kt Weapon, Heavy Mount

So the total resistance that the NSPs skipped was: 1415 (1125 shields, 290 armor).

Re: Torpedo question
 

thanx for this additional information. the results of your experiment look very useful to me. (as I overestimated NSP until now) I dont really like them because of their enourmous cost anyway.

what do you guys think about the temporal weapons?

[ November 14, 2003, 22:31: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, you certainly can. The algorithm will only give rough estimates though, and only based on the tech level used (max in this case). There is no guarantee of APB beating everything else, of course. But, all else being equal (which rarely occurs in-game, of course), APB will win most of the time. Unless you use Max Range strategy...

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Time Distortion Bursts can sometimes go head to head with APBs if the enemy uses lots of shielding. Otherwise, they lose out (as they do lots of damage to shields, relatively little past the shields). The Shield Accelerator is roughly akin to the Shield Depleters. The Temporal Shifter is actually weaker than the NSP, but costs less IIRC. I forget exactly what it was better at and worse at, but it was not just purely better than or worse than the NSP. The Tachyon Cannon suffers from the same draw backs (and has the same advantages as) the Torpedo weapons.

Re: Torpedo question
 

Well, don't take them as proof of anything - I only ran each test 10 times, and the simulator is known to be a bit off in its results.

It does, though, make me want to try MBs as a mid-game weapon (instead of PPBs) Though if I get beat down by ships with Shields V, I will never doubt my PPBs again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You can't rename systems - only ships and planets that you own. So if you colonized every planet in the Potekron system, yes, you could rename them Iolo I, Iolo II, Iolo III, etc., but the star would still be Potekron Star and the system would show up on the galaxy map as Potekron.

Re: Torpedo question
 

Another thing for newbies to take into account is that Fryon likes to dogmatically repeat his opinion as if he were absolutely right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif He's actually wrong about some of the things he's been repeating recently - especially about some of my Posts being wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Re: Torpedo question
 

If someone runs more tests, try adding a Shield Depleter as the first weapon on non-NSP ships.

Ships with greater than 1-turn reload times should use Max Range with secondary strategy "don't get hurt", so they don't stick around to get killed while recharging weapons.

PvK

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nope. You're wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But really... what am I allegedly wrong about?

Re: Torpedo question
 

OK BOYS! Break it up.

Take it outside to a Fyron Is Wrong thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Torpedo question
 

Sorry Wardad. I was just exaggerating and teasing Fryon about his exaggerated teases. Staying on topic, I'd say Fryon was either wrong or exaggerating or incomplete about such things as:

"... Baseships, which are extremely innefficient..."
- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".


"That [Taera: "PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned."] only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways."
- These are exaggerations. Max range with ships that need to reload will tend to improve their effect and survivability, unless there are so many ships that they can't actually move backwards. Also, even in huge/dense ship battles, there are still a significant number of ships which don't get blown up in a single turn.

In reply to Ed Kolis:
"Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range...

Of course that wouldn't work when the enemy has faster engines, but then for assaults against satellites, bases, and planets... "

Fryon quipped:
"It also does not work very well when the enemy goes the same speed as you either."
- Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading.

Now, I'm not asserting that such tactics are enough to tip the scales set by the rather lame torp stats versus the rather good APB XII stats in the unmodded game, but they do have positive effects in many situations.

It was clear to me from Fryon's winking smilies (" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ") that he was teasing and exaggerating, but I thought maybe some newer players might get the wrong idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I often use smileys at fairly random times. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They are very slow. Compare ROF 1 range 8 weapons on BBs with max range to ROF 1 range 6 on BS with optimal, point blank, whatever. Same engines. The BBs can fire and move well out of range and not be fired at in some rounds because they have 2 greater speed in combat. All shots will be at long ranges for both sides. BB fires at range 7, moves back far enough so that the BS can't get within range to fire its weapons. Even if the ships use the same range weapons, the BBs can still get an advantage. The only way that using max range with long range weapons is a good idea is when you have a speed advantage. If the enemy is using BSs, you can guarantee a speed advantage by using BBs. DNs have a speed advantage too, but it is only 1 point, so much more difficult to use effectively. And, they do not even get a better mount than the BB. This is the biggest factor in the innefficiency of the BS (that, and their high research cost, which could be better spent getting higher level weapons, shields, etc. sooner). The benefit of the massive mount over the heavy mount is not usually enough to outweigh the loss of speed. Then, they tend to have much longer build times. Replacing losses takes a lot longer with BS than with BB (large losses, at any rate). This can be mitigated with huge racial construction bonuses, though not completely. And, of course, you spend less on the basics (bridge, engine, CS, etc.), which gives a bit of increased cost effeciency. Oh, and let's not forget that ECM penalty that Baseships have. That always hurts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok. You fire your rate 2 weapon, then your ship moves 4 squares away (assuming 4 speed). My rate 1 weapon armed ship moves 4 squares closer, and we are back to ground zero with the ships in the same relative positions as before. Where is the advantage? Default optimal range strategy targetting priority: Has Weapons, Most Damaged, Nearest, Strongest. Ships will tend to follow those ships that are damaged and retreating while they recharge their weapons, thus greatly reducing their ability to try to avoid damage by falling back. Those that have not yet been damaged don't need to be followed.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That they do. Unfortunately, the situations in which they don't have any postive effects tend to outnumber those in which they do. Unless, of course, you can force every battle to be defensive behind a warp point so that you can exploit the high damage per shot of the torpedos to do more damage in round 1, hoping to destroy enough of the enemy fleet so that your lack of staying power (ie: much less damage/rate/kiloton ratio, so less damage can be dealt in X rounds than with APB) can be bypassed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 16, 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They are very slow. Compare ROF 1 range 8 weapons on BBs with max range to ROF 1 range 6 on BS with optimal, point blank, whatever. Same engines. The BBs can fire and move well out of range and not be fired at in some rounds because they have 2 greater speed in combat.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
The difference is two engines, or ONE greater speed in combat, not two, since combat speed is half of the strategic speed.

Yes, it can still make a difference in some cases, IF you are using the Max Range strategy which I was suggesting (and which you were saying was useless).

My point on this item is just that this +1 combat speed (or +2 movement speed) isn't enough to make baseships "extremely inefficient". They have advantages and disadvantages, which can be used well or poorly. In some cases they can be an efficient choice.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Another exaggeration. Two examples are the one you're making me re-explain below, and the example when you have a to-hit advantage over your opponent, so you want to maximize it by prolonging the time that the range is long. A third is when your enemy has shorter-ranged weapons than you do.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Unless they have an advantage in engine or Solar Sail technology, or the Propulsion Experts advantage...
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok. You fire your rate 2 weapon, then your ship moves 4 squares away (assuming 4 speed). My rate 1 weapon armed ship moves 4 squares closer, and we are back to ground zero with the ships in the same relative positions as before. Where is the advantage?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
The advantage is that I fired at max range, so on your next turn, you are firing at that same max range while I reload. If I didn't use Max Range, you would be nailing me at much closer range while I was reloading. Also, sometimes there are obstacles, and being at range also often means fewer of your ships will be in range to fire at all, some of my ships which have just reloaded or are just coming in range may now be closer, etc.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
If you do that, as I explained before, you may be pursuing a slightly-damaged ship of mine which is at max range, but to do so, you are missing many shots, and moving to closer range against some of my undamaged ships who are ready to fire at you and retreat.

Also, if some of your ships become damaged so that they lose speed but not weapons, they will tend to fall out of range to hit any of my ships, as the battle moves towards me and away from your stragglers.

PvK

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, the difference is 3 engines, which comes out to either one or two combat move, depending on which engines and sails you are using. Quantum Engines + Solar Sail III nets 6 combat move for BB, 4 for BS. 2 difference in combat movement.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I never said that... in fact, you were the one advocating using torpedoes against someone using APBs and max range! In fact, I listed several times when max range is not bad... although I see I forgot to mention the speed advantage in that post, which is the other time it can be advantageous.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I suppose the wording could have been better there, as I had previously listed those other cases... It was not an exaggeration, it was part of the on-going comparison of late-game tech, in which you don't have to-hit advantages from tech (and racial bonuses tend to balance out as most players take 130% bonus anyways, or get knocked off early-game...). And, the range advantage thing was part of that paragraph. Taking that sentence on its own would lead to such an interpretation, but leaving it in context does not. But either way, my point still stands.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This was assuming same propulsion mechanisms... if you spend the research to get BS, you won't likely be ahead in propulsion (unless far behind in other areas), unless you have a lot more research points anyways, which is a totally different issue.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">APBs still out-perform torpedos at those max ranges (range 6: APB XII 1.5 dmg ratio, QT V 1.25 dmg ratio)... and with torpedos not having any to hit bonus, it is really not much of an advantage. Your ships can't get away with same speed ships, so they are still going to be in range anyways. And, with the greater range of the APB, the APB ships can still get more stacking fire than the torpedo ships out at those max ranges, thus increasing the damage done by the APB side even further. Sure fewer of my APB ships will be in range to fire, but even fewer of yours will be. I will still have more ships that can fire than you, due to the range advantage. And don't forget about the shield depleters + ionic dispersers that make all that moving of yours stop. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Due to how SE4 strategic combat AI concentrates fire, there will be very few slightly-damaged ships to pursue. Ships that get shot at most always get shot at until they are dead (within the round), then the next target is selected.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And your ships that get damaged in the same way will fall prey to close ranged attacks. Unless you are going to spread your fire out amongst my ships, trying not to destroy, just disable (which leads to taking more damage from my ships overall as they get knocked out of combat more slowly), your ships will tend to concentrate their fire on mine, destroying them in a single round as well. It is only in those rare small battles where there is not enough firepower to vaporize that this is much of an issue.

[ November 16, 2003, 07:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Torpedo question
 

now this is a really good discussion, I learn a lot from this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif so thanx a lot.

if you ask me: its 2:2 until now, but both of you should try to stick to the assumptions made in the beginning and not bring in possible additional weapons or other components in order to strenghten your arguments. (as both of you did)

PVK: <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Imperator Fyron: <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">but beside this it is a VERY VERY nice discussion. thanx again. I would really enjoy a SEIV PBW game once with all (or most) of you heavy forum posters here. I am sure I will be deeply impressed by all the tricks you guys still got hitten in your sleeves http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 16, 2003, 09:56: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

Re: Torpedo question
 

If you want hidden tricks and slick tactics you will get them with these guys. They are very good at what they do. It is almost frightening how well they know this game and how to exploit the weapons, formations, and strategies of the game.

The thing that I have noticed time and again is that once everyone reaches a certain weapons tech level everyone becomes more or less evenly matched and the dynamic of the game changes from a tech race to who can blow up whos planets first.

The only way to gain the advantage once everyone has the advantage of superior weapon technology is to go after their resource supply lines. Fleets seldom engage each other unless they have no choice and the turn after turn is spent in a cat and mouse game of seek and destroy.

If you do not anihilate your opponent early on, when you do have the advantage, then you will more likely wish you had after he and you are evenly matched and he begins to pose a sincere threat to your galatic way of life.

No plans of universal domination can prepare you for the loss of a huge fleet to a relatively small number of ships, out dated ships that is. So when it happens, its is because the other guy knew a trick that you did not. I call these occurances by names such as:

Operation Slick weasle
Operation Sneaky Bastard
Operation Backstabber
Operation I should have seen that one coming.

So on and so on.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm sure all the BGNW players will agree that the Last thing they want is for Maerlyn to learn more new tricks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well since Shield Depleters make up half of the APB strategy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Generally, people go DUC > PPB > SD + APB. The PPB devastes ships with standard shields, and the SD can devastate ships with any shielding (phased included). IDs are just icing on the cake. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Of course, Torpedo ships can benefit from SD and ID too.

Oh, and another point... multiplex tracking helps APB ships more than Torpedo ships. The higher damage per shot from the Torpedos can lead to more damage getting wasted in the Last shot that destroys a ship from the Torpedo than you lose from the APB.

Re: Torpedo question
 

I was trying to keep the points focused to a few examples of what I meant when I said Fryon was over-generalizing in specific Posts. His Last counter-arguments tend to smear between issues, which would be a bit of work to go back and re-direct.

So, just a few clarfications:

* Ya, it's 1 or 2 combat speed difference between baseships and battleships with the same equipment. However, it's still not enough to keep baseships from having certain efficiencies, such as better mounts and the ability to pile about twice as much equipment on per set of other components, etc. My point was simply that they are not "extremely inefficient" - rather, they have some strengths and some weaknesses.

* Fryon wrote: "in fact, you were the one advocating using torpedoes against someone using APBs and max range!" Not even! I was just explaining what advantages there were in that style of fighting, while repeatedly saying that I thought they were still a weaker weapon than APB XII so I'd be surprised if it made the difference. What I was arguing about, were Fryon's exaggerations on other details.

* He's continuing to miss or dodge the point that while reloading and unable to fire, it's better to be as far away as possible, instead of close. He's either failing to understand what I've explained several times, or hoping no one will notice that he's just repeating an unrelated argument which I agree with, that unmodded APB XII does do a lot more total damage than Quantum Torps.

* As for statements about the frequency of battles so huge that all ships are smashed in one turn, etc., that largely depends upon circumstances. In my experience, I've seen many battles where Max Range/Don't Get Hurt has allowed a smaller fleet to defeat a much larger one. I've also watched replays with hundreds of ships in them, where many ships were not destroyed on the first turn they came under fire. Many of course were destroyed in one turn, so it's true that often you don't get a chance to run away, but sometimes you do, and it only takes sometimes to give an advantage, even if a slight one, which is what I had meant to argue.

I'd also add a point, that Max/Don't Get Hurt tends to be more of an advantage to the smaller fleet rather than the larger one, since it reduces the amount of contact with the enemy compared to more aggressive movement orders. When you have the advantage of numbers and/or a slight disadvantage in quality, and in many other cases, Optimal/Short/PointBlank can offer advantages, by getting more of your ships as close as possible.

PvK

Re: Torpedo question
 

Torpedoes cannot target fighters. That is actually an advantage in larger fleet battles (given that you have enough PD, of course). While APB or PPB ships waste shots on fighter stacks, torpedoes will deal with the real threats (i.e. ships). So they are, in a sense, 'cannon fodder skipping' weapons.
I ran some tests a while back that showed if fighters are involved, the battle can swing decisively in favor of the torpedo using fleet.

Re: Torpedo question
 

This topic has turned out to be one of the best strategy threads I have read in a good long long time.

Re: Torpedo question
 

My problem with using Max Range strategy was with the combat AI of my ships in strategic combat. In this game I had some fairly decent APBs with much better range than the low-level PPBs that this particular AI enemy had. Neither of us had much in the way of shields, so the shield penetration of their PPBs was not really a factor. I figured to take advantage of that range difference by setting my ships to Max Range, thinking that I would be making hits on the enemy while staying out of their range entirely. Big surprise! My fleet was destroyed with almost no damage to the enemy, so I ran the Replay to find out what happened.

Our ships had started combat all mixed together, and the problem was that my ships were all scrambling to get away to max range, meanwhile getting the snot pounded out of them. Instead of firing while up close, and then seeking to move away to max range, my ships were moving away, then firing from the increased range, with reduced damage and chance to hit. Then the enemy would move up close and paste my ships from short range. Repeat a few times, and my fleet was gone.

I hope in SEV we get some smarter combat AI, that will fire the guns while at best range in the maneuvers. That may be before moving if you are trying to move away, or after moving if you are trying to get closer, or in mid-move if doing a hit-and-run with fighters - but not at your furthest point from the enemy!

SpaceBadger

Re: Torpedo question
 

An awful starting position can make all the difference. It seems to me though that usually Max/Don't Get Hurt does fire before moving away, so I'm not sure what occurred in your situation to make it move and then fire from further away.

The tac AI can do some other silly things sometimes. The Max Range strategy can also be messed up when a ship ends up running away from the ship it's firing on, but towards other enemy ships, when it doesn't have to. And many other weird possibilities.

PvK

Re: Torpedo question
 

Rollo: check "Do Not Fire On" setting in strategies, this isnt a point to focus on

Max Range - max range is a small to med fleet strategy, assuming you have equal or greater speed. the best results are when you start in a loose formation and have time to close in. for close quarters.. go short range

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, I've seen this too. Ships on Max run away, THEN shoot. Ridiculous.

Re: Torpedo question
 

Targeting selection can also affect ship firing/movement order. Unless you use "nearest, nearest..." ships may try to reach some far away ship and fire after movement. Sometimes it can give the impression "run away and then fire".

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My thinking on this is that if they all had equal amounts of shield depleting, then there would be no difference between performance. Thinking about it now, though, I wouldn't be surprised if Torp Ships got a greater bonus out of it... I'll give it a go.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I thought that "don't get hurt" was the default behaviour if you didn't have a weapon to fire. Does actually setting the secondary strat to "Don't Get Hurt" do anything for ships with higher reloads?

Re: Torpedo question
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IIRC, the "RAM !!!" affects ship movement during the reload.

Re: Torpedo question
 

If you don't use "Don't Get Hurt" as secondary, then ships will hover at the indicated range even when their weapons aren't ready. I believe this is true regardless of rate of fire.

Oleg, I bet you're right about the firing order. I think if you specify "Nearest" (or, say,
"Has Weapons/Nearest") as firing priority, with Max/DGH, they'll fire before backing off.

What I hate though is when it fires and backs off, but backs off towards a bunch of enemies, when there is a clearly better way to move way from all foes.

PvK

Re: Torpedo question
 

PvK:
Regardless of your extreme nit-picking over semantics, my arguments are still valid.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The issues tended to be explainable from the same sources. The issues were often the same issue.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You seem to have missed a few sentences of my post where I discussed that phrase...

I never said they had no efficiencies (I in fact mentioned several of them), and that does not even follow from the "extremely inefficient" phrase. Their inefficencies just outweigh the effeciencies in most situations, leading to such a conclusion.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your post on it seems to be advocating such a thing. Perhaps that is not what you meant to say in that post... let me nit-pick over a single term for a few days here... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is rather rude to talk about someone in the third person when they are "present", you know.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not at all. I never once said that it was bad to get farther away while reloading, nor anything approaching such a statement. I have just been saying that unless you have a speed advantage, you can not get away from being shot at with same or shorter ranged weapons. All you can hope to do at best is keep the same distance. Which we seem to be in agreeance on... what are we arguing over here?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have understood everything you have said. Please don't post veiled insults again (or things that can come across as such). Thanks.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your argument seems to be different than what you have been posting then... perhaps you should try to be a little clearer?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Certainly that was not the only difference in those cases. In my experience, the only time I have seen that happen is when that smaller fleet has a significant advantage in to hit chances (such as drastically better racial bonuses, a tech advantage, or those ridiculous talismans). Or if they have a tech advantage in the weapons department and can deal a higher damage ratio...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But unless you can move faster than the enemy, you can not run away! They will always be able to follow you, at worst just maintaining the same difference. (and don't take yet another sentence quoted out of context)

[ November 17, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Torpedo question
 

3:3;
your turn PVK! go! go! go!...

P.S.: thanx for the flowers once more deccan http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 17, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]