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 ]