Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

While designing a few Light Carriers, something stroke me when doing a small calculation about the compared efficiency of the Heavy and Massive Mounts. Here are the increases in damage compared to the previous mount:
- Large Mount compared to no mount: +33% damage for the same space.
- Heavy Mount compared to Large Mount: +12,5% damage for the same space.
- Massive Mount compared to Heavy Mount: +11,5% damage for the same space.

So, while the Heavy and Massive Mounts do increase damage a bit, is it really a good idea to have fewer, albeit stronger and bigger, weapons? It will make them more likely to get hit instead of, say, these Fighters Bays when speaking of a Light Carrier, or other less critical parts of the ship.

Besides, if the chances to hit the enemy ships are not impressive, I guess you would want to have as many hits as possible, rather than the occasional hit dealing a lot of damage. The only reason why you would want to deal as much damage in a single blow would be against a Crystalline Empire I guess, given the properties of their armour.

So, am I missing something obvious, or are these Heavy Mounts (and Massive Mounts as well, although these are much less common) bittersweet? Or am I merely worrying a bit too much about my beloved Light Carriers?

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

It's almost always best to use the biggest mount you can. Test your designs in the simulator head-to-head, one with mounts and the other without and see what happens. Also, don't just set up 1 vs. 1; use fleets vs fleets too. I am sure the mount ships will be wiping the floor with the unmounted ships.

Slick.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Bigger is almost always better in SEIV.

While the larger size might make the weapons have a slightly better chance to be hit, the higher damage per shot means you are taking out several components at a time. This increases your chances of scoring a "critical hit" on any particular shot, taking out their bridge, life support or sensors.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

That's a good point Geo, I did forget that while your wepaons are a bit more exposed, so the enemy ship is more vulnerable as well. I guess I will keep on using these Heavy Mounts, even if they don't improve this much a given weapon. (At least compared to the Large Mounts)

I will likely run a few tests in the simulator to see what happens with Large Mounts against Heavy Mounts, so as to check if there is much of a difference in this kind of setting. But I gather that all else being equal, the results will be linked to luck and to the varying AI behaviour. Thanks for the answers!

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Of course, some special weapons are not worth of using heavy or massive mounts. For example computer virus and crew subverter. Computer virus 3 makes 60 damage to master computer at normal mount. It means that it would destroy 3 master computers at one shot. Nobody puts 4 master computers in same ship.

IIRC Crew subverter 3 receives its max damage in heavy mount (120 if I do not remember it wrong), which means that its chance to convert enemy ships is 120%. No need to use bigger percents of greater mounts.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The larger mounts give a longer range. The added range can be very important.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I just looked into this Last night.

30Kt APB base size, normal damage = X
+15Kt for Large mount, damage = X + X
+15Kt for Heavy mount, damage = X + X + X

So you always buy the base size.
You pay half the base size for every mount upgrade.

[ March 10, 2004, 16:18: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Oops, I should have specified I was talking about ship mounts and not base/unit mounts. While the latter does give extended range, the ships granted to ships do not. (If memory serves right, some base/unit mounts also give increased accuracy)

Obviously, bigger mounts are compulsory for bases and weapon platforms (or satellites if you do want to research Satellites III) given their impressive bonuses, but I don't find them that much more useful for ships. On the other hand, Massive mounted weapons cost exactly as much as regular weapons, so it doesn't hurt to use the biggest mount. Having less weapons packing a bigger payload means your weapons are a bit more vulnerable, but it also helps if you want to repair your ship, so I guess I was too wary. (Who said "paranoiac"? Shhh, they are out to get you)

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

I have found it better to just go with the heavy mounts over large ones even in low hit situations. Sure there are slightly fewer hits sometimes, but each hit does more damage, so at worst it balances out using Heavy instead of Large.

[ March 10, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Well, I do not have the game in front of me...

But, The mounts also increase the damage resistance.

If I remember this rightfor ships:

ABP 30Kt Normal mount = 30Kt damage resistance
ABP 45Kt Large mount = 60Kt damage resistance
ABP 60Kt Huge mount = 90Kt damage resistance

So your actually less vulnerable with the bigger mounts. It is like adding armor to your weapons.


BTW1: Previously when I wrote "base size", I meant the "normal size".

BTW2: SATs have a Large Mount that increases range.

BTW3: I may use the higher levels of the Special Weapons for the increase in range, even if the damage is overkill.

[ March 10, 2004, 18:06: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Well, using a Quantum V for comparision:

Normal mount 100 damage, 40kt
Large mount 200 damage, 60kt
Heavy mount 300 damage, 80kt
Massive mount 500 damage, 120kt

Using equal tonnage of all of them or 240kt of weapons, so:

6 Normal, 400 damage
4 Large, 800 damage
3 Heavy, 900 damage
2 Massive, 1000 damage

Using a 50% to-hit chance and comparing Large with
Heavy:

large probabilites and damage:
0: .0625 (0)
1: .25 (200)
2: .375 (400)
3: .25 (600)
4: .0625 (800)
average hits: 2 average damage: 400

heavy probabilities and damage:
0: .125 (0)
1: .375 (300)
2: .375 (600)
3: .125 (900)
average hits: 1.5 average damage: 450

[ March 10, 2004, 20:51: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Shouldn't it be: 0.125% for 3 hits with the Heavy mounted weapons? It should be equal to the probability of having no hit. If I am right, and if my calculation is correct, it should be 1,5 hits on average for 450 damage on average. (Which would make sense with a 50% chance to hit after all) But I may be wrong given my poor maths skills.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

The easiest way to calculate the best gun is to divide damage with tonnage. Example:

500 dmg
------- = 4,1666...
120 ton

300 dmg
------- = 3,3333....
90 ton

Bigger ratio = better gun. Of course I haven't taken into account of how much weaker the beam gets when it fires longer. Therefore I design two kind of ships. First those, who fire far and make lots of damage in far at the first round. Secondly I make ships which make best damage at point blank range. Also I diidn't take into account of how much each weapon costs in resources. That is everyone to decide whether or not to count it.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

You're probably right on the heavy mounts- at the moment the probability goes over one. Oops. Guess I forgot to update my calculator settings.

EDIT: fixed. Heavy still does more damage overall.

[ March 10, 2004, 20:52: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">More hitpoints mean they are more likely to be hit and thus die first.

However, if the enemy delivers a few thousand damage to drain your shields and armor, a few extra hitpoints on a gun is nothing. Besides, your crew won't have any time to think about the ramifications of losing the guns before they are reduced to their component atoms by the rest of the volley...

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

The key is the range....

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Some of you guys are comparing apples and oranges... the original post was about ship mounts, which have no range bonuses at all!

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Hey, I just checked the game again and

APB mineral cost is proportional to the increase in Kt size.

So the bigger mounts do more damage for less cost. (ie. less maintenance).

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

3 factors

Maintence
Range
Damage
(actually a 4th one ) size.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Mounts can add a lot of flavor to a game, but be careful, mounts can also ruin a game.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

The cost is not altered by using mounts, if you keep using the same amount of kt for your weapons. (Say, with 180kt for weapons, you can have either 6 normal APB or 2 massive mounted APB)
- 6 normal APB cost 400 minerals each, so 2,400 minerals in the end
- 2 massive mounted APB cost 1200 minerals each, so once again 2,400 minerals.

The only changes of the *ship* (and ship only, it does without saying that base or units mounts are compulsory. But ship mounts do NOT give range bonuses or accuracy bonuses in the vanilla game) mounts is an increase in firepower and having less, but bigger and slightly stronger weapons. For the sake of completeness, mounts also increase supply usage a tad, if you compare the same amount of kt. But obviously, as SJ pointed out, if your ship is destroyed in a single turn, losing weapons earlier isn't going to change much.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No longer there. We used to have one but they took it away from us. So you just have to either leave the post or edit it out as you did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

I think mounts in the default game (among several other things) are very disbalanced. They make damage soaking devices like emissisive armor almost irrelevant and I dont use them in my games. A little bit more play testing by MM would have been fine.

klausD

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes.
The cost effectiveness is altered by using the mounts. More bang for the buck. More damage resistance for the buck.

The larger ships have less overhead then an equal tonnage of smaller ships, because of the bridge (or Master Computer), engines.

The larger ships are more cost effective by spreading benefits over a larger tonnage of weapons. Typically used componants like Combat Sensors, ECM, Stealth Armor (defense bonus), Scattering Armor (defense bonus), fuel storage (engine damage reserve), Shields, Self Destruct, Security Stations, and PD add important benifits.

The mounts make the larger ships an even better deal by increasing the firepower per ton of weapons.


The special weapons make it hard to defend smaller ships. Defending against boarding parties, ion dispersers, seekers, fighters, shield depleters, all compete for room with the weapons. A well defended small ship will not have enough fire power.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

Oh, you were talking about cost efficiency, while I thought of base cost. Sorry for any misunderstanding. (Although the increase in damage given by the Heavy and Massive Mounts isn't that great compared to a Large Mount, it does exist.) As for increased damage resistance, it might be a curse as well as it makes these weapons more vulnerable. But having one or two hundred more hitpoints isn't going to matter if your ship is destroyed in a single volley, nor will it be a problem if the weapons are shut down before all other components.

Using a given hull size is a whole different topic, and one that has been heavily discussed I gather. My concern was not about using bigger ships (say, a Battleship), but rather about the usefulness of using Heavy Mounts compared to the previous Large Mounts, available for all warships starting from the Light Cruiser. (Can you guess I am biased against the Massive Mount, and so the Baseships?) And of course, my problem was to determine whether a +12,5% increase in damage per kt was worth the increased vulnerability of the weapon systems. I am now minded to believe it is, mainly because it doesn't cost anything to use Heavy Mounts instead of Large Mounts, and skirmishes aren't exactly frequent.

*Grumbles* I should really get back to working on something besides my scheming efforts.

Re: Usefulness of the bigger mounts
 

If small skirmishes were frequent, the increase in damage resistance would be more important not less important.

It takes more hits to destroy the ship before targeting the next one.

With a enemy using a "Fire until all weapons are destroyed" strategy it should still help.

Weapons without fuel are useless.
Weapons without combat sensors can be useless.
If smaller weapons gives you a greater chance of losing fuel and sensors before the weapons, just what have you gained?

[ March 11, 2004, 20:48: Message edited by: Wardad ]