OA vs Shields
 

Dont wanna hijack the thread... about OA vs Shields issue, the main point is that there is a Shield Depleter and Shield Distruptor, when there is no such thing to counter armor. Besides, shields take up supplies to regenerate - armor only takes up repair, and thats not a problem in a solid fleet.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

shard cannon ? engine killers ?

Re: OA vs Shields
 

shard cannons hurt. engine killes... get some shields, whoever goes in with OA only? ^_^

Re: OA vs Shields
 

The point is that you don't get a chance for the regeneration to occur in most situations...

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I did say higher level shields, not lower level.

OA III: 5 hp/kT
PSG V: 10.375 hp/kT (don't forget the structure of the comp itself)

Twice as much raw defensive strength.

Shield Disruptors are at best equal in strength to Shield Depleters (they both take out roughly the same amount of shield points, and Shield Regenerators are a joke for most uses).

Re: OA vs Shields
 

except in some mods, shield regenerators are a total joke. pre-regeneration helped alot for OA, but i believe that it has been patched out.

here are the advantages that i see for each option:

advantages to org. armor: effective against mines, effective for ramming (ramming sats can be ALOT easier than shooting them down), self repairing, can potentially allow you to build ships in half the time, doubling both your hitpoints AND firepower, invulnerable to shield killing weapons, less effected by TDB.

advantages to shields: twice as many hit points, protects against engine killers, protects against boarding parties, protects against shard cannons, no need for repairs if shields are not breached

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Keep in mind you still have to be able to pay for and support those ships... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">An excellent point as always. They will do you no good in mothball.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Shields aren't so good those numbers would indicate. First there is the cost issue, PSG V costs 800 minerals when OA III costs 130 organics. The cost difference is remarkable, especially when you can get most of time surplus of organics.

If you use TDB against PSG V component's actual hit points are 375/4+40=134 -> 134/40=3.3 hp/kT which is less than OA III's 5 hp/kT. You can get same kind of result, though not so good, by using SD and a normal weapon.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Except that the shields are actually still stronger than OA with a SD... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Now if you can guarantee that 2 SD will always hit...

Also, TDB is a racial weapon, so not a good solution.

The cost of shields is not that significant in the long run.

[ December 26, 2003, 07:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Why should 2 SD always hit? Of course there will be misses both in SD and normal weapons.

Btw, I've been astonished how ingeniously AI uses SD in big battles. If ship has SD and multiplex tracking and its primary target has no shields left it uses SD against shielded ship while using normal weapons against shieldless target. Impressive from AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'd think the cost is significant particularly in the long run. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OA vs Shields
 

the point is, your shielded battleship would build in 4 rounds, while my organic ship would build in 3 or even 2. My ship would cost half as much to support, and for every shielded ship of yours i'd have two or three organic-armored ships of mine. And, the only true counter to my strategy is a racial tech people hardly ever take.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Taera, you're a way too optimistic. Using armor instead of shield won't reduce the build cost that much. Also you won't have two or three organic armored ships against every shielded ship but perhaps 1.5 or even less. Remember engines, sensors, weapons and ship control costs a lot of minerals.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

In any case, OA is by far the best ship defense in early/mid game - before phased shield are researched. The reason is blatantly obvious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Asmala, 2 SD would have to always hit for them to be effective in reducing the defensive strength of the phased shields below that of organic armor. If they miss, then they do not reduce the strength at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Taera... as Asmala said, that is not really true. Keep in mind that you will be able to support maybe 100 ships to my 95... the costs are not that much different. In fact, organic weapons tend to cost more than regular ones do (comparing similar weapon types, of which PPB is not one, as there is no shield-skipping organic weapon). Unless you use huge amounts of defensive components, this balances out the cheap cost of OA, leaving your ships costing aboue the same amount of resources. Again, unless you have only a few weapons and a lot of OA, in which case your ships will lack the firepower to do any real damage. Remember, fleet stacking means that your OA will not get much of a chance to regenerate for most of your ships. Sure, you can build them faster, but so what? You still have to pay for the construction and maintenance on all those ships, which is about the same as for a "normal" player. When you factor in the necessity of training your ships, the effective "build time" is increased by 7 turns (to get 20%, you can go with 18% for 6 turns if you like). So 11 compared to about 9 or 10. Not that significant. Forgo training and watch your ships lose horribly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Of course, you can always use the exploit and use a huge planet with 2 moons to get 3 training facilities, which leads you to 7 turns or 5-6 turns for max training... still not very significant.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

If the other one of ship's SD misses the normal weapon's damage go to shields. Next turn there's no shields so SD are used to next target while normal weapons finish the first ship. Thus SD are ahead of normal weapons. And they also will stay ahead because normal weapons will miss as well. So it's not so big deal if SD misses.

Bigger problem will be the balance between SD and normal weapons. The shield damage to normal damage ratio should be same as shield to hp ratio. Not an easy goal to achieve.

Ships using organic armor/weapons cost about the equal amount of resources than normal ships. The benefit is that normally organic planets aren't used much so you get "extra resources" by using organic stuff. Of course you can put research centers to those organic planets but usually there's enough places for them.

My opinion is that OA is quite well balanced compared to shields. It has its benefits but aren't too powerful.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That ratio is correct from my (extensive) PBW experience with Organic Tech. Also, you need to consider the opportunity cost of that 1500 points – for example, that amount spent will get you a 25% bonus in Aggressiveness or a 30% research bonus in Intelligence. If you do not win by mid-game, usually you opponent will devour you. In multi-player, your opponents are researching against different tech threats and you can find a niche advantage. In a one-on-one game, an experienced player will know your strengths at first contact and counter – you need to win fast or die.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Organics cost more than normal weapons, maybe, but -in organics-.

The rest of your ship, the CQ, engines, LS and bridge, sensors, ECM, and any shields you use, still are very mineral heavy.

A BC with CS, ECM, 6 Quantu, Engines, a Solar Sail, 4 sheild generators, a PDC and 6 APB costs 14100 min, 200 org and 1660 rad

Same ship with Organic weapons, 10510 min, 5600 org, 580 rad.

Replace all but one shield generator with organic armor, and you get 8110 min, 6120 org, 580 rad. Less than half as much mineral cost, and the total cost for all three resouces is 15960 vs 14810, in favor of the Organic ship.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">8110 = less than half of 14100? Hmm Last time I had math they told me differently http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OA vs Shields
 

this thread is to respond to Fyron's statement that OA's lose horribly to shields, which he already stated. They are excellently balanced. After all, the point of organic trait is lots of weaker, cheaper ships. But lots. Maybe not that much more, as some people said, but enough to keep your ships busy.

As for heavily-armored ships, well, in my experience ships with HEAVY armoring and a few (BIG) weapons are extremly fearful - im talking about racial armors, for their regeneration. If the ship is solid enough, it's likely not to go soon. With only 5 armors you get 150 regeneration per round, which is aint bad. The only worry are the ID's, but well, everything is threatened by ID's unless you go heavy shielding, which is then vulnurable to shield-only weapons.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

P-D, that goes right along with what I said... the organic ships cost a bit fewer resources total, but not by much. And why would you compare BCs? If you have that much tech, surely you must have BB or larger, for the heavy mount weapons (which are a lot better to use than BCs with large mount). The costs get closer when you use big ships.

Taera, don't put words in my mouth. What I said does not lead to "loses horribly."

Resource Converters can make fair use of those organic valued planets. Not quite as good as using them for organics, but good enough.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is what happens when you read the wrong part of the line. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Comparing BBs, the difference grows to 7950 min, 17900 vs 19440 total cost; 108.6% difference vs 107.7%. So the difference actually grows. Ends up being about a two-turn difference in construction time (.5 vs .3)

Resource conVersion is fine for maintance/construction costs, but does exactly jack for your construction time. And you still end up paying more, especially given that 30% of the additional organic value is lost.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

There is another point to bring up that I haven't seen mentioned (although I may have missed it).

Let's say your ship survives combat with damage. On the average the shield ship can be repaired more quickly and sent back out.

That's something I'd like to see changed for SEV, repairs based on points rather than components.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

um, nodachi, organic armor regenerates as long as at least 1 survives, which is not that difficult - its either there some armor, or the ship is all gone, on armor-heavy ships

fyron: sorry, but thats how that sounded to me. sorry for misquoting.

[ December 27, 2003, 06:21: Message edited by: Taera ]

Re: OA vs Shields
 

P-D... you are forgetting the essential Stealth and Scattering Armor... that adds a lot of minerals cost. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And then there are the rather useful Shield Depleters and Ionic Dispersers. Those warships you are talking about would not be very effective compared to better designed ships...

Re: OA vs Shields
 

OK Taera, maybe I wasn't being clear. I should have said survives with damage to the internals, ie. all armor is gone.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

no nodachi, i know what you meant, but under the setting of heavy heavy fire, the ship either has armor left, or is all gone. i think.

Fyron: with racial techs, it doesnt pay off to have scattering/stealth armors IMO. SD and ID are a must tho.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your ships will lose really badly if you don't have stealth and scattering armor. That 30% is vital.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

hmm... that's true, but OTOH organic ships, at least in my designs, tend to go close-range where this is less vital. yes, it is significant. still.
(not - crystalline armored ship doesnt care how much is it being hit, 14CA's are NASTY)

Re: OA vs Shields
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The BBs I quoted did include stealth/scattering.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

Hmm... the BC design lacked them, and you did not make mention of adding them to the BB design.

Re: OA vs Shields
 

But I did anyway.