thinking: OA vs CA
 

There is the post Game Styles and it made me think. (hey, its my post, i can think as much as i want!)
When Organic Armor is compared to Crystalline armor, which is actually better?
So lets review the statistics.
Similar research costs, similar protection ration, similar size.
Organic costs organics, but then crystalline armor is only 70 (!) minerals and rads at level 3.
Organic is only useful when you have more than one. It only regenerates if there is another armor available. It also does no longer have the cancerous growth.
Crystalline armor does not regenerate but given a single shield component on the ship would give 15 points of damage off per armor component as long as there are shields and armor of this type available.

Lets summarize.
A ship with two armors. Organic ones:
One is destroyed and begins to regenerate. In the couple next turns the second one would be probably dead, too. OTOH it can regenerate armor without need to repair.
Crystalline ones:
Each hit is 30 point of damage off. Each, untill armor is gone, providing effective Emmisive Armor effect and distracting the fire of shield depleters sometimes. It requies repair after destroyed.

Anyone else is thinking now?

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

note: im my phrasing i obviously prefer CA which is true now. Ignore this, this was supposed to be an emotionless post. Just express YOUR thoughts.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Interesting ... never thought they were so close in cost/benefit. Other benefits:

for CA -- a ship must have shields, and they must be functional(have supplies, not be blown out by shield disrupters).

Additional benefit, weak weapons may never deplete shield enough to allow boarding parties to work(I've seen it tough enough on tactical, strategic is prob. tougher)

... for OA, you get defense vs mines and damageing sectors. But you're naked to boarding without shields.

Hmm... hard for me to decide which is better.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Given a decent amount of CA, you take half damage from enemy weapons.
Requires a shield generator.
Effective even in fleet situations.
Degraded by large ship mounts and high-damage/slow reload weapons.

OA seems to be a simplified Shield regeneration system.
No additional components required.
Very effective one-on-one, or at extreme ranges with low to-hit chances, potentially providing invulnerability.
Becomes little more than inert armor in fleet battles.

[ November 27, 2002, 19:38: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

SJ: high damage/low reload weapons eliminate any bonuses from regeneration and whatsoever so thats not that much important.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

High-damage low reload weapons will give your OA time to regenerate while they reload.

The CA just sits idly by waiting for the next hit.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

My most liked advanced tech was organic armor but
after the new patch is released, OA will loose its power. Who needs regenerating armor if it regenerates only AFTER the battle? I don't see the point in that. If the ship survives the battle - there are repair bays/space yards to repair it.
Crystaline armor is nice but to spend 1500 points on armor that is just a little better than normal is way too much. I would beef-up research/construction for that amount of points and just put more normal armor/shields on a ship.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think that's how it's going to work. OA will still regenerqate during combat as usual, but it will also regenerate after combat, which it didn't do before.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

CA requires phased shields - PPB makes CA ability irrelevant if your ship has just normal shields.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Right, dogscoff. I searched through the forum and found that OA will not PRE-regenerate.
Thanks for making such a simple statement and my life happier http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 28, 2002, 12:49: Message edited by: Pablo ]

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.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Another exception is that mines ignore shields.

[ December 03, 2002, 20:31: Message edited by: capnq ]

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Back about Organic Armor. Is there a really big difference between pre-regenerating & regenerating after the battle?
I believe there is, in case OA is _not_ on your ship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">PvK, you have a lot of very good points there, but I tend to agree with the Baron on this one. Once you get into battles with more than 5 ships, a targeted ship tends to go Foof! before it ever gets a chance to retreat. If it does survive the round, it will not retreat because it will certainly not have a single engine left. This said, the build up of repair (two turns tops) will at least allow some lucky first round survivors to repair enough to retreat, and perhaps even repair enough to get off one Last shot.

With the new rules, I think I'd only put on organic armor because it isn't made of minerals, which would increase build time (as you've pointed out). Hardly worth picking the Organic trait for this, I'd rather go with Hardy Industrialists.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

the major point why one might not want to choose the racial armors as that two other armors - scattering and stealth - have extra bonuses, as well as a good +25% to defensive bonus, which is A_LOT.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's 15 bonus to them each, and so thus totals up to 30% bonus. Although that 30% isn't worth anything without an ECM to back it up. Also, racial armors are really, really tough and really help out your ship in combat.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well it does depend on your enemy's battle tactics. If they are concentrating fire to finish off crippled ships, there are some disadvantages to that, compared to other firing priorities. I have watched many large-scale battles and yes, many ships get caught and destroyed in one turn. Nonetheless, organic armor takes a lot of damage, and often ships are pounded and do get to back away and are not hit again for a turn or more.

I actually haven't run into many enemies using Engine-Damaging weapons, but I'm also not convinced that ships using OA can't just as easily have shields and/or supply storage on them as standard ships.

It seems to me that OA would still be useful even without regenerating ability, mainly because it is relatively strong, immune to shield damaging weapons, and costs very little.

Quote:

With the new rules, I think I'd only put on organic armor because it isn't made of minerals, which would increase build time (as you've pointed out). Hardly worth picking the Organic trait for this, I'd rather go with Hardy Industrialists.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Build time and maintenance cost, because OA is so cheap. Choosing it is a matter of style, and I don't usually go organic, but the times that I have, have all been quite successful.

As for pre-healing, it's extremely powerful, limited only by the concentrated fire of large fleet battles, and makes zero sense.

PvK

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Almost all of the ships I build have an ID on them....

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep, but most of the players like to use PPB...

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

MB: and then? PPB still doesnt pass phased shields.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Shield Disruptors. Knock out the generators, and CA becomes only slightly better than standard armor.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

shield distruptors are too expensive to be an effective counter.
In that case, just knock down any shields and burn their engines, thats not an answer though as SDs are way too expensive to be used effectively. and not too powerful.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

You're better off using Tachyon Projection Cannons:[*]They are the same size and cost less.[*]They have better damage at range.[*]They have better damage/turn at range.[*]They do a better job of disabling enemy ships. Shield Disruptors kill shields and leave the weapon killing to you; TPCs kill weapons, and weaponless shielded ships aren't worth their maintenance.

Yes, reload is 4 for TPCs and 3 for SD's; but IMHO, the benefits of TPCs far outweigh that.

[edit] Not to mention that Shield Depleters are at least as effective as Shield Disruptors at taking shields out of the way.

[ December 04, 2002, 01:28: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

TPC is one of my Favorites. DUC/TPC + shields or armor can be very deadly early on, and TPC is the bets supplement for missile ships.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

The point is that they are better against CA than Depleters are, because you don't get those weird extra damage effects going on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Against non CA ships, Disruptors do indeed suck, as they do about the same damage as Depleters (and Shield Regenerators do too little to matter much in general).

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Krsqk,

Your ideas work well against standard 'capital' ships with heavy direct-fire weapons. They are less effective against missile-bearing ships due to the extreme range disadvantage, and nearly useless against a race that emphasizes fighters (carriers) and/or drones. Units on a ship don't count as 'weapons' for the Tachyon Projection Cannon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So, about all you could do to carriers is destroy their PDC. As always, rock/paper/scissors offers a way around a supposed 'good trick'...

[ December 04, 2002, 02:12: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem with pre-regenerating was that the OA would start banking regeneration "points" from the beginning of combat, before the armor had even taken a hit.

Re: thinking: OA vs CA
 

Okay, you guys are right, it isn't logical that the OA would pre-generate healing... so I'd just suggest that the repair ability be bumped up from 10?/20/30 repair points per turn to say maybe 15/30/45 repair per turn to make up for the shortfall. This is of course entirely modable, so probably not something that needs to find it's way into a patch (does anyone play the original game anyway?).

PvK said:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's true, I didn't consider the absolute cost (and thus the maint. cost), just the fact that build time was improved. I guess my ships don't Last long enough to become a maintenance burden http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

cheers,
jimbob