Re: Weapons
Is there any advantage to doing more damage with 1 weapon, over doing the same damage with 3?
In raw terms (ignoring rate of fire), the WMG III has an efficiency of 2.0; the PBB is either 2.0 (closer range) or 1.66 at maximum range. But if my PBB ship survives, it will deliver that efficiency every turn (when RoF and range are factored in, efficiency is 3.33 (PBB) vs 1.78 (WMG); range favors WMG slightly). *If* you can keep the WMG ship hovering at a range of 7-8, then the PBB hosed; I accept without reservation that longer range will always win if it can be maintained. On the other hand, it takes a lot less research to get a PBB - and the numbers suggest it has a throw weight that is almost as good or better, depending on how you weight rate of fire and range.
Upshot: for a given amount of space, you can get more or less the same firepower out of a PBB as a WMG. If the single-shot power of the WMG has no intrinsic damage-dealing advantage over firing a number of PBB for the same result, why do it?
Partial answer: Because there's never an ideal amount of ship space. Thus, between our contenders, the best use of *70* hull spaces is a WMG (140 damage). But the best use of 90 or 120 hull spaces is 4 PBB (180/240 damage).
Doing some quick fiddles with the spreadsheet: in its range band, the only weapon better for damage/space at max range is the Enveloping Acid V, which fires every other turn *and* does more damage per space (2.5 to 2.0). It's a cheaper research project but requires special race traits, unlike the WMG. (If we factor in rate of fire, the Anti-Proton XII becomes a nice choice. 8)
Should the efficiency calculation weight range more heavily? (Not all battles allow you to maintain range: warp-point fights start at point-blank if one side is coming through the point.)
The Talisman + speed ship is an interesting concept. 8)
Watching all this, Cor has, several times, wondered if accountants would be more productive if their spreadsheets were disguised as 4X games. 8)
[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 21 November 2000).]
|