[LintMan]

This is all great stuff. Saben, that was a great idea to look at the damage/kt/round as a way to make direct comparisons between the weapons.

Some thoughts I'd like to add:

- This is all analysis based on the tech levels available in the demo. I'm assuming that some/all of these techs will have higher levels or more powerful replacements above them (like Wave Motion Gun replaces Incinerator Beams). Perhaps as you put more research in, past what's available in the demo, some of the less-useful weapon trees will blossom into some more desirable choices.

- What about emissive armor? I haven't seen much discussion about it, but I think the top-end absorbs any shots with 30 or less damage. I assume that means 30 or less from any single weapon. If so, the meson bLaster, which does 30 damage, may be completely ineffective against it. Perhaps at higher tech beyond the demo, the armor's absorption could go to 50, which would similarly negate DUCs and APBs and make the slow high damage weapons like the WMG, etc more appealing.

- Might the larger weapon-mount sizes change things a bit? I don't know the exact numbers, but for instance, I think the large mount doubles the damage, for 50% extra weight? And I think the heaviest mount quadruples damage for less than a quadruple weight (I think). Something like that could make the slower heavy-duty weapons more appealing. Anyone car to run the numbers?

- The big slow guns like the WMG and Hellfire also might be good when placed on stationary bases and satellites where you lack mobility to chase your target so you want to maximize your punch when you can get one in. For example, the AI attacked a lone starbase of mine, and danced its ships in and out of my range, so the slower fire rate wasn't as much of a problem, and the extra damage was a big benefit.



[This message has been edited by LintMan (edited 30 October 2000).]