Ripper Beams
 

I just noticed something. I wanted to check all weapons using a high tech start. But when I got to ship design there were no ripper beams! I know they are there because in my game I already researched them and see them in the design screen. Why are they not present in high tech, which has everything researched ???

Re: Ripper Beams
 

They are in fact there. You need to turn off the “only latest” option in order to see them. They are in the same weapon family as the wave motion gun. The incinerator beam is the same way.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

For some reasons, ripper beams (and incinirator beams) are "made obsolete" by Wave Motion Guns. Switch off "only latest" view and you'll find the rippers.

P.S.: Good timing, Omega http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif Next time we'll have to use the same words http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by Lisif (edited 09 June 2001).]

Re: Ripper Beams
 

Thanks. I didn't think of that. I guess it was a dumb question.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

This is frustrating in AI design, since ripper beams and WMGs have significantly different characteristics, but you can't tell the AI to use ripper beams or incinerator beams on a design once you have WMGs, and conversly, you can't tell the AI to use some other long range weapon until you have WMGs researched. At least unless someone else has figured out something I haven't.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

Anybody played with separating ripper and incinerator beams from the WMG research chain? It seems like a good idea, given their totally different ranges and reload rates. Perhaps creating a new base research area at the same level (and total eventual cost) as rippers, that then leads to WMGs?

Of course, it's a tech mod, so massive AI rejiggering would have to ensue. So maybe it's not worth it.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

You should be able to split them up fairly easily. I think the reason they don't show up at higher levels is because they all have the same family and weapons family numbers. These numbers determine what shows up as a component when using "only latest" and which weapons the aI puts on ships.
I think if these numbers were different for each weapon you could get the AI to include all the types of weapons.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

I think Marty hit the nail on the head. Easiest thing to do is to give incinerator beams, ripper beams, and WMG's different family and weapon numbers. That way the WMG won't automatically replace the ripper beam when the AI decides to upgrade/build new designs. This would leave the research queues intact, all you would have to do is swap weapon numbers in the AI's design creation files. I suppose if you wanted to you could even design ships with a primary armament of ripper beams backed up by one or two WMG's which might be kind of interesting. I'm about 85% sure it should work just fine.

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 10 June 2001).]

Re: Ripper Beams
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jc173:
I suppose if you wanted to you could even design ships with a primary armament of ripper beams backed up by one or two WMG's which might be kind of interesting. I'm about 85% sure it should work just fine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My plans for starbases include most of the weapons space rippers plus just a couple of wmg in case a heavily armored ship engages. I have been using ppb in my previous low tech one medium planet start games. But those ended before the AI had researched phased shields. In my game with a ten good planet start the phased shields are already being researched at turn 45, and I expect peace until turn 100+. So there is no point to using ppb at all. It seems the rippers are the smallest and cheapest per unit damage, while the wmg bypassing armor is their only advantage.

Now I have another question. Do engine, weapon, and shield destroying weapons bypass shields, or do you have to beat the shields down first ? If they do not bypass shields, then the only use I see for them is precision hits when you plan on capturing the ship with boarding parties to get tech. In that case you want to be careful not to destroy the very thing you want to capture. But in my game all the tech will be researched by the time hostilities begin. So if they bypass shields I will put weapon and engine destroying weapons on my bases just in case I want to capture a hulk for retrofit/repair.

That brings up another question. Suppose you capture an enemy ship which is legendary experience. Does it remain legendary for you, or start out from scratch ? I will have enough yards to build more ships than I can afford to maintain, but if I can capture ships with high experience then boarding parties may be worth using. Otherwise not since no tech would be captured.

Edit - The WMG do NOT bypass armor, I don't know where I got the notion they did...

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 11 June 2001).]

Re: Ripper Beams
 

I don't know about bypassing the shields and armor but someone suggested a long time a go that a great use for the engine destroying weapons was to disable ships and make your opponent pay mainenance for them. As long as you can prevent a repair vessel from getting to the a huge fleet of immobile DN would cost a pretty penny and be pretty useless!

Re: Ripper Beams
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Do engine, weapon, and shield destroying weapons bypass shields, or do you have to beat the shields down first ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All the X-destroying weapons only affect X-type components, and completely ignore any other components on the ship.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: Ripper Beams
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by capnq:
All the X-destroying weapons only affect X-type components, and completely ignore any other components on the ship.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks both of you!
If both weapons and armor, then that changes my plans. There are going to be a LOT of engineless/weaponless enemy hulks on my warp points! Not over my colonies of course since that would be a blockade.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jc173:
I think Marty hit the nail on the head. Easiest thing to do is to give incinerator beams, ripper beams, and WMG's different family and weapon numbers. That way the WMG won't automatically replace the ripper beam when the AI decides to upgrade/build new designs. This would leave the research queues intact, all you would have to do is swap weapon numbers in the AI's design creation files. I suppose if you wanted to you could even design ships with a primary armament of ripper beams backed up by one or two WMG's which might be kind of interesting. I'm about 85% sure it should work just fine.

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 10 June 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, changed the family of the Ripper beam a long time ago in my techs. It's a completely different weapon than the Incinerator or Wave-motion gun. That tactic of putting tractor, then rippers, and then a repulsor beam works great in SE3. Chew 'em up & spit 'em out right! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Haven't tried it yet in SE4. I guess it's just natural to try the new stuff rather than what you already know.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

I was reading the post on damage as affected by shields and armor when it occured to me that I really might want to use wave motion guns anywhere a visit by crystalline or organic ships was likely. It looks like the WMG would be more likely to blow them away than anything else. But it sure is big and expensive for the damage it delivers. Could anybody comment on rippers versus organics and crystallines ?

Re: Ripper Beams
 

I have been doing tradeoffs for starbases armed with massive mount weapons. Here is the design I plan to use - number of the component to include, name, size, damage, cost in minerals/ organics/ radioactives, then total size/ damage/ costs
1 - Starbase hull when selected 2500/0/0
1 - Master Computer III 20/20 4000/1000/1000 same
1 - ECM III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Combat Sensors III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Multiplex Tracking (5) 10/10 350/0/0 same
1 - Scattering Armor III 50/150 500/0/100 same
6 - Stealth Armor III 30/100 700/0/200 - 180/600 4200/0/1200
8 - Phased Shield Generator V 40/40 800/0/0 - 320/320 6400/0/0
9 - Shield Regenerator IV (not V) 20/20 850/0/260 180/180 7650/0/2340
Total non weapons 780/1300 26400/1000/4640
All weapons are Heavy mount.
4 - Anti Proton Beam XII 120/210 1600/0/480 - 480/840 6400/0/1920
5 - Phased Polaron Beam V 120/210 2000/0/1200 - 600/1050 10000/0/6000
8 - Ripper Beam IV 80/140 800/0/640 - 640/1120 6400/0/5120
Total weapons 1720/3010 22800/0/13040
Grand total 46 components at 2500/4310 49200/1000/17680
Ratio nonweapons to weapons 0.45/0.43 - 1.1/all/0.35

This design is for late in the game when the enemy can be expected to have phased shield generators on ships but will also be attacking with hundreds of fighters. The APB have range 14 so can strike fighter Groups on the turn before the fighters get in range. The PPB have range 12 and can blow many fighters away (because they lack phased shields), but are 5/4 the minerals cost of APB at 12 for the same hits per unit space. Unfortunately fighters with max engines and afterburners move 12 in combat, so the PPB get to hit only if the base survives the first round. The RB only have range 9, but the minerals cost per hit is 60% of APB and 44% of PPB. The hits per unit space is 5/4 the APB and 4/3 the PPB. Also the damage value for RB is cheaper minerals per unit - 3/4 the APB and 60% the PPB. So you get both cheaper hits and armor at the cost of lousy range and not being able to shoot fighters. At point blank the Ripper is king. Minerals per hit is 65% APB and 48% PPB. Hits per unit space is 15% greater than APB and 25% greater than PPB. I looked at the other weapons but they were all space wasters per unit hit per turn. Meson BLasters were a close match for APB at range 12, but lacked the extra range to 14. They were not shield penetrating like PPB and did not have the firepower of RB. Point defense is a waste of space. I will have PD only weapon battle cruisers for missiles and to help with fighters. Also I will have PPB armed fighters to take out fighters, and rocket pod armed fighters to take out missile ships and carriers. All that leaves is baseships and many small stacks of rocket pod armed fighters as a threat. Since I will have seven of these bases backed up by two carriers with 400 fighters and 14 yard bases to do repairs, I do not anticipate any great defeats. Now all I have to do is find the 3.5 million minerals maintenance money - about 20 turns for 50 sphereworlds.....

Edit - combat simulator shows fighters with max best engines and afterburners move *9* not 12. This base design took out a stack of 100 nicely without a scratch. Unfortunately carriers launch in packs of five, and the base only has nine weapons that can shoot fighters. Thats why you have to back them up with PD ships and your own fighters.



[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 11 June 2001).]

Re: Ripper Beams
 

You may find it difficult to hit those fighters at long range, accuracy goes down 10% per square and they are hard to hit to begin with. You might want to build a bunch of PD sats if you are going to face a lot of fighters or build a training facility to get you base a high level of experiance.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
You may find it difficult to hit those fighters at long range<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, that's why I must include PD ships and my own 400 fighters everywhere. I am not really worried about fleets, because I will usually have range on them with massive mounts. But fighters move so fast in combat that they can blow me away with rocket pods if not intercepted. I plan on having all the ships and bases collected into fleets with BASES as the fleet leaders so the ships will stay close to papa.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

Last night I was once again looking at base designs to see whether they would be capable versus waves of fighters, and thought that I had overlooked the shield and armor penetrating Null Space Projector NSP. But here is a comparison versus Ripper Beams RB to blow away my own base design with 3000 shields, 750 armor, and 4310 damage in a single salvo engagement.
NSP must hit 4310, MM shoots 420 so you need 11. Cost is 44000 0 44000 at 2200/3850.
RB must hit 8060, MM shoots 350 so you need 23. Cost is 18400 0 14270 at 1840/3220.
So RB cost is 41% same 32%, while space is 84% and damage absorbed is 84%.
The RB blow away the same enemy in a single salvo engagement, at less than half the cost, slightly less space, and are cheaper for damage absorbtion by a factor of two. At range 9 or less (versus 11 for NSP) RB RULE!
Now the only problem is an enemy armed with NSP at range 11 blowing away your RB only equipped base. That's why you must also have the PPB and APB, which outrange the NSP.

The only other thing I can think of to make NSP attractive are those organic and crystalline armors that feed damage back to shields. If you cannot blow up the ship in a single combat turn, then this could cause a big problem. Could the experts on these armors give their opinion on RB versus NSP here ?

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 12 June 2001).]

Re: Ripper Beams
 

I wouldn't want to attack a starbase with ships armed with rippers. The 3 range is to short. Baseships equipped with these would face 2-3 salvos before getting into range.
They do make good base defense weapons though, although nothing beats an APB XII on a base. You can almost fire to the edge of the screen!

Re: Ripper Beams
 

If you are only considering being able to destroy every component possible than the RB is more effective. But you don't have to destroy the entire target to render it combat ineffective. So if a NSP skips past armor and shields and manages to knock out the critical components, in this case probably weapons, bridge, possibly ECM, sensors, and multiple... then you don't need to destroy everything else on board the target. I think combat loss grouping might be a bigger factor with an NSP armed force, ie the quicker you knock down one enemy the more rapidly you will dispatch the others because you can concentrate fire on the survivors.

I'd be perfectly willing to use the damage until no weapons strategy and finish off the stragglers later even if they still had shields and armor.

Ok the same effects apply to the ripper beam somewhat also, but to me that's diluted by the fact that you must burn through the shields and the armor first. Which means that you have that much more damage to do before you can hit the internals.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

Actually, if you're defending a planet you still need to finish off those cripples since they count as a blockade.

------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

Re: Ripper Beams
 

Good ideas!
For my 27 warp points to be defended I am considering having one or two baseships with heavy shields and armor whose only weapons are three each of weapon and engine destroying weapons. That way I can disable but not destroy attacking baseships for capture. Also I will have a boarding parties base ship with heavy s/a, null space projectors to take out any SDD, a couple shield destroying weapons, and lots of boarding parties.
But I will not build them until I see lots of baseships attacking, because maintenance on three baseships would eat me alive unless I could depend on capturing an average of two baseships per turn. The mothball/ unmothball is almost as bad as regular maintenance if attacks come frequently.

I was not suggesting an attack on a starbase by RB equipped baseships. As you say, it would be foolish. But a baseship can be presumed to have damage stats similar to my starbase design, and I did not take the time to design my own baseship. It will be a LONG time in my game before I can afford to go on the offensive.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

LCC if you're planning on capturing enemy ships the SDD can be a huge pain in the rear. It's a relatively small component so it's hard to hit, seems that you almost always nail the bigger components such as weapons etc first. If you're using tactical combat one thing that seems to help for me at least is to give the boarding ships or other specialized ships a large number of low damage weapons and first them singly or in small Groups to pick off the SDD. I don't know if this would be worth the effort for the sort of large game you are playing though.

This is sort of cheesy, but I used it once on the Rage when I was desperate. Use nothing but NSP's or Shard Cannons on the enemy ships, eventually you'll blow everything up onboard except the armor. So you will be capturing a completely crippled hulk, that will require a lot of repairs. In my situation though, I needed the hulls badly and it was worth it for me since I had extensive orbital maintenance and construction facilities.

Re: Ripper Beams
 

You may also want to consider having a shipyard component in the WP. This will allow you to immediately mothball and repair any ships captured. If you captured a lot you could even scrap a few if you capture damaged ones with tech you can't repair.