Torpedo question

[Maerlyn]

thanx for this additional information. the results of your experiment look very useful to me. (as I overestimated NSP until now) I dont really like them because of their enourmous cost anyway.

what do you guys think about the temporal weapons?

[ November 14, 2003, 22:31: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Taera:
im sorry guys, but i dont think you can algorithm this game, as it is simply the reflection of player's mind

Yes, you certainly can. The algorithm will only give rough estimates though, and only based on the tech level used (max in this case). There is no guarantee of APB beating everything else, of course. But, all else being equal (which rarely occurs in-game, of course), APB will win most of the time. Unless you use Max Range strategy...

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
what do you guys think about the temporal weapons?

Time Distortion Bursts can sometimes go head to head with APBs if the enemy uses lots of shielding. Otherwise, they lose out (as they do lots of damage to shields, relatively little past the shields). The Shield Accelerator is roughly akin to the Shield Depleters. The Temporal Shifter is actually weaker than the NSP, but costs less IIRC. I forget exactly what it was better at and worse at, but it was not just purely better than or worse than the NSP. The Tachyon Cannon suffers from the same draw backs (and has the same advantages as) the Torpedo weapons.

[spoon]

Well, don't take them as proof of anything - I only ran each test 10 times, and the simulator is known to be a bit off in its results.

It does, though, make me want to try MBs as a mid-game weapon (instead of PPBs) Though if I get beat down by ships with Shields V, I will never doubt my PPBs again

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
thanx for this additional information. the results of your experiment look very useful to me. (as I overestimated NSP until now) I dont really like them because of their enourmous cost anyway.

what do you guys think about the temporal weapons?

[Ed Kolis]

Originally posted by DeadDireWolf:
Also, is there anyway to rename the entire system or do you have to do it one at a time with the 'name' button?

You can't rename systems - only ships and planets that you own. So if you colonized every planet in the Potekron system, yes, you could rename them Iolo I, Iolo II, Iolo III, etc., but the star would still be Potekron Star and the system would show up on the galaxy map as Potekron.

[PvK]

Another thing for newbies to take into account is that Fryon likes to dogmatically repeat his opinion as if he were absolutely right. He's actually wrong about some of the things he's been repeating recently - especially about some of my Posts being wrong.

PvK

[PvK]

If someone runs more tests, try adding a Shield Depleter as the first weapon on non-NSP ships.

Ships with greater than 1-turn reload times should use Max Range with secondary strategy "don't get hurt", so they don't stick around to get killed while recharging weapons.

PvK

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
Another thing for newbies to take into account is that Fryon likes to dogmatically repeat his opinion as if he were absolutely right. He's actually wrong about some of the things he's been repeating recently - especially about some of my Posts being wrong.

PvK

Nope. You're wrong. But really... what am I allegedly wrong about?

[Wardad]

OK BOYS! Break it up.

Take it outside to a Fyron Is Wrong thread.

[PvK]

Sorry Wardad. I was just exaggerating and teasing Fryon about his exaggerated teases. Staying on topic, I'd say Fryon was either wrong or exaggerating or incomplete about such things as:

"... Baseships, which are extremely innefficient..."
- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".


"That [Taera: "PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned."] only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways."
- These are exaggerations. Max range with ships that need to reload will tend to improve their effect and survivability, unless there are so many ships that they can't actually move backwards. Also, even in huge/dense ship battles, there are still a significant number of ships which don't get blown up in a single turn.

In reply to Ed Kolis:
"Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range...

Of course that wouldn't work when the enemy has faster engines, but then for assaults against satellites, bases, and planets... "

Fryon quipped:
"It also does not work very well when the enemy goes the same speed as you either."
- Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading.

Now, I'm not asserting that such tactics are enough to tip the scales set by the rather lame torp stats versus the rather good APB XII stats in the unmodded game, but they do have positive effects in many situations.

It was clear to me from Fryon's winking smilies (" ") that he was teasing and exaggerating, but I thought maybe some newer players might get the wrong idea.

PvK