Torpedo question

[Fyron]

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.

I often use smileys at fairly random times.

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

They are very slow. Compare ROF 1 range 8 weapons on BBs with max range to ROF 1 range 6 on BS with optimal, point blank, whatever. Same engines. The BBs can fire and move well out of range and not be fired at in some rounds because they have 2 greater speed in combat. All shots will be at long ranges for both sides. BB fires at range 7, moves back far enough so that the BS can't get within range to fire its weapons. Even if the ships use the same range weapons, the BBs can still get an advantage. The only way that using max range with long range weapons is a good idea is when you have a speed advantage. If the enemy is using BSs, you can guarantee a speed advantage by using BBs. DNs have a speed advantage too, but it is only 1 point, so much more difficult to use effectively. And, they do not even get a better mount than the BB. This is the biggest factor in the innefficiency of the BS (that, and their high research cost, which could be better spent getting higher level weapons, shields, etc. sooner). The benefit of the massive mount over the heavy mount is not usually enough to outweigh the loss of speed. Then, they tend to have much longer build times. Replacing losses takes a lot longer with BS than with BB (large losses, at any rate). This can be mitigated with huge racial construction bonuses, though not completely. And, of course, you spend less on the basics (bridge, engine, CS, etc.), which gives a bit of increased cost effeciency. Oh, and let's not forget that ECM penalty that Baseships have. That always hurts.

- 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.

Ok. You fire your rate 2 weapon, then your ship moves 4 squares away (assuming 4 speed). My rate 1 weapon armed ship moves 4 squares closer, and we are back to ground zero with the ships in the same relative positions as before. Where is the advantage? Default optimal range strategy targetting priority: Has Weapons, Most Damaged, Nearest, Strongest. Ships will tend to follow those ships that are damaged and retreating while they recharge their weapons, thus greatly reducing their ability to try to avoid damage by falling back. Those that have not yet been damaged don't need to be followed.

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.

That they do. Unfortunately, the situations in which they don't have any postive effects tend to outnumber those in which they do. Unless, of course, you can force every battle to be defensive behind a warp point so that you can exploit the high damage per shot of the torpedos to do more damage in round 1, hoping to destroy enough of the enemy fleet so that your lack of staying power (ie: much less damage/rate/kiloton ratio, so less damage can be dealt in X rounds than with APB) can be bypassed.

[ November 16, 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...

quote:

---

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

They are very slow. Compare ROF 1 range 8 weapons on BBs with max range to ROF 1 range 6 on BS with optimal, point blank, whatever. Same engines. The BBs can fire and move well out of range and not be fired at in some rounds because they have 2 greater speed in combat.

---

The difference is two engines, or ONE greater speed in combat, not two, since combat speed is half of the strategic speed.

Yes, it can still make a difference in some cases, IF you are using the Max Range strategy which I was suggesting (and which you were saying was useless).

My point on this item is just that this +1 combat speed (or +2 movement speed) isn't enough to make baseships "extremely inefficient". They have advantages and disadvantages, which can be used well or poorly. In some cases they can be an efficient choice.

... The only way that using max range with long range weapons is a good idea is when you have a speed advantage.

Another exaggeration. Two examples are the one you're making me re-explain below, and the example when you have a to-hit advantage over your opponent, so you want to maximize it by prolonging the time that the range is long. A third is when your enemy has shorter-ranged weapons than you do.

If the enemy is using BSs, you can guarantee a speed advantage by using BBs.

Unless they have an advantage in engine or Solar Sail technology, or the Propulsion Experts advantage...

...

quote:

---

- 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.

Ok. You fire your rate 2 weapon, then your ship moves 4 squares away (assuming 4 speed). My rate 1 weapon armed ship moves 4 squares closer, and we are back to ground zero with the ships in the same relative positions as before. Where is the advantage?

---

The advantage is that I fired at max range, so on your next turn, you are firing at that same max range while I reload. If I didn't use Max Range, you would be nailing me at much closer range while I was reloading. Also, sometimes there are obstacles, and being at range also often means fewer of your ships will be in range to fire at all, some of my ships which have just reloaded or are just coming in range may now be closer, etc.

Default optimal range strategy targetting priority: Has Weapons, Most Damaged, Nearest, Strongest. Ships will tend to follow those ships that are damaged and retreating while they recharge their weapons, thus greatly reducing their ability to try to avoid damage by falling back. Those that have not yet been damaged don't need to be followed.

If you do that, as I explained before, you may be pursuing a slightly-damaged ship of mine which is at max range, but to do so, you are missing many shots, and moving to closer range against some of my undamaged ships who are ready to fire at you and retreat.

Also, if some of your ships become damaged so that they lose speed but not weapons, they will tend to fall out of range to hit any of my ships, as the battle moves towards me and away from your stragglers.

PvK

[Fyron]

The difference is two engines, or ONE greater speed in combat, not two, since combat speed is half of the strategic speed.

No, the difference is 3 engines, which comes out to either one or two combat move, depending on which engines and sails you are using. Quantum Engines + Solar Sail III nets 6 combat move for BB, 4 for BS. 2 difference in combat movement.

Yes, it can still make a difference in some cases, IF you are using the Max Range strategy which I was suggesting (and which you were saying was useless).

I never said that... in fact, you were the one advocating using torpedoes against someone using APBs and max range! In fact, I listed several times when max range is not bad... although I see I forgot to mention the speed advantage in that post, which is the other time it can be advantageous.

quote:
... The only way that using max range with long range weapons is a good idea is when you have a speed advantage.

Another exaggeration. Two examples are the one you're making me re-explain below, and the example when you have a to-hit advantage over your opponent, so you want to maximize it by prolonging the time that the range is long. A third is when your enemy has shorter-ranged weapons than you do.

I suppose the wording could have been better there, as I had previously listed those other cases... It was not an exaggeration, it was part of the on-going comparison of late-game tech, in which you don't have to-hit advantages from tech (and racial bonuses tend to balance out as most players take 130% bonus anyways, or get knocked off early-game...). And, the range advantage thing was part of that paragraph. Taking that sentence on its own would lead to such an interpretation, but leaving it in context does not. But either way, my point still stands.

Unless they have an advantage in engine or Solar Sail technology, or the Propulsion Experts advantage...

This was assuming same propulsion mechanisms... if you spend the research to get BS, you won't likely be ahead in propulsion (unless far behind in other areas), unless you have a lot more research points anyways, which is a totally different issue.

The advantage is that I fired at max range, so on your next turn, you are firing at that same max range while I reload. If I didn't use Max Range, you would be nailing me at much closer range while I was reloading. Also, sometimes there are obstacles, and being at range also often means fewer of your ships will be in range to fire at all, some of my ships which have just reloaded or are just coming in range may now be closer, etc.

APBs still out-perform torpedos at those max ranges (range 6: APB XII 1.5 dmg ratio, QT V 1.25 dmg ratio)... and with torpedos not having any to hit bonus, it is really not much of an advantage. Your ships can't get away with same speed ships, so they are still going to be in range anyways. And, with the greater range of the APB, the APB ships can still get more stacking fire than the torpedo ships out at those max ranges, thus increasing the damage done by the APB side even further. Sure fewer of my APB ships will be in range to fire, but even fewer of yours will be. I will still have more ships that can fire than you, due to the range advantage. And don't forget about the shield depleters + ionic dispersers that make all that moving of yours stop.

If you do that, as I explained before, you may be pursuing a slightly-damaged ship of mine which is at max range, but to do so, you are missing many shots, and moving to closer range against some of my undamaged ships who are ready to fire at you and retreat.

Due to how SE4 strategic combat AI concentrates fire, there will be very few slightly-damaged ships to pursue. Ships that get shot at most always get shot at until they are dead (within the round), then the next target is selected.

Also, if some of your ships become damaged so that they lose speed but not weapons, they will tend to fall out of range to hit any of my ships, as the battle moves towards me and away from your stragglers.

And your ships that get damaged in the same way will fall prey to close ranged attacks. Unless you are going to spread your fire out amongst my ships, trying not to destroy, just disable (which leads to taking more damage from my ships overall as they get knocked out of combat more slowly), your ships will tend to concentrate their fire on mine, destroying them in a single round as well. It is only in those rare small battles where there is not enough firepower to vaporize that this is much of an issue.

[ November 16, 2003, 07:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Maerlyn]

now this is a really good discussion, I learn a lot from this so thanx a lot.

if you ask me: its 2:2 until now, but both of you should try to stick to the assumptions made in the beginning and not bring in possible additional weapons or other components in order to strenghten your arguments. (as both of you did)

PVK:

Unless they have an advantage in engine or Solar Sail technology, or the Propulsion Experts advantage...

Imperator Fyron:

And don't forget about the shield depleters + ionic dispersers that make all that moving of yours stop.

but beside this it is a VERY VERY nice discussion. thanx again. I would really enjoy a SEIV PBW game once with all (or most) of you heavy forum posters here. I am sure I will be deeply impressed by all the tricks you guys still got hitten in your sleeves

[ November 16, 2003, 09:56: Message edited by: Maerlyn ]

[Atrocities]

If you want hidden tricks and slick tactics you will get them with these guys. They are very good at what they do. It is almost frightening how well they know this game and how to exploit the weapons, formations, and strategies of the game.

The thing that I have noticed time and again is that once everyone reaches a certain weapons tech level everyone becomes more or less evenly matched and the dynamic of the game changes from a tech race to who can blow up whos planets first.

The only way to gain the advantage once everyone has the advantage of superior weapon technology is to go after their resource supply lines. Fleets seldom engage each other unless they have no choice and the turn after turn is spent in a cat and mouse game of seek and destroy.

If you do not anihilate your opponent early on, when you do have the advantage, then you will more likely wish you had after he and you are evenly matched and he begins to pose a sincere threat to your galatic way of life.

No plans of universal domination can prepare you for the loss of a huge fleet to a relatively small number of ships, out dated ships that is. So when it happens, its is because the other guy knew a trick that you did not. I call these occurances by names such as:

Operation Slick weasle
Operation Sneaky Bastard
Operation Backstabber
Operation I should have seen that one coming.

So on and so on.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Maerlyn:
now this is a really good discussion, I learn a lot from this so thanx a lot.

I'm sure all the BGNW players will agree that the Last thing they want is for Maerlyn to learn more new tricks.

[Fyron]

if you ask me: its 2:2 until now, but both of you should try to stick to the assumptions made in the beginning and not bring in possible additional weapons or other components in order to strenghten your arguments. (as both of you did)

Well since Shield Depleters make up half of the APB strategy... Generally, people go DUC > PPB > SD + APB. The PPB devastes ships with standard shields, and the SD can devastate ships with any shielding (phased included). IDs are just icing on the cake. Of course, Torpedo ships can benefit from SD and ID too.

Oh, and another point... multiplex tracking helps APB ships more than Torpedo ships. The higher damage per shot from the Torpedos can lead to more damage getting wasted in the Last shot that destroys a ship from the Torpedo than you lose from the APB.

[PvK]

I was trying to keep the points focused to a few examples of what I meant when I said Fryon was over-generalizing in specific Posts. His Last counter-arguments tend to smear between issues, which would be a bit of work to go back and re-direct.

So, just a few clarfications:

* Ya, it's 1 or 2 combat speed difference between baseships and battleships with the same equipment. However, it's still not enough to keep baseships from having certain efficiencies, such as better mounts and the ability to pile about twice as much equipment on per set of other components, etc. My point was simply that they are not "extremely inefficient" - rather, they have some strengths and some weaknesses.

* Fryon wrote: "in fact, you were the one advocating using torpedoes against someone using APBs and max range!" Not even! I was just explaining what advantages there were in that style of fighting, while repeatedly saying that I thought they were still a weaker weapon than APB XII so I'd be surprised if it made the difference. What I was arguing about, were Fryon's exaggerations on other details.

* He's continuing to miss or dodge the point that while reloading and unable to fire, it's better to be as far away as possible, instead of close. He's either failing to understand what I've explained several times, or hoping no one will notice that he's just repeating an unrelated argument which I agree with, that unmodded APB XII does do a lot more total damage than Quantum Torps.

* As for statements about the frequency of battles so huge that all ships are smashed in one turn, etc., that largely depends upon circumstances. In my experience, I've seen many battles where Max Range/Don't Get Hurt has allowed a smaller fleet to defeat a much larger one. I've also watched replays with hundreds of ships in them, where many ships were not destroyed on the first turn they came under fire. Many of course were destroyed in one turn, so it's true that often you don't get a chance to run away, but sometimes you do, and it only takes sometimes to give an advantage, even if a slight one, which is what I had meant to argue.

I'd also add a point, that Max/Don't Get Hurt tends to be more of an advantage to the smaller fleet rather than the larger one, since it reduces the amount of contact with the enemy compared to more aggressive movement orders. When you have the advantage of numbers and/or a slight disadvantage in quality, and in many other cases, Optimal/Short/PointBlank can offer advantages, by getting more of your ships as close as possible.

PvK

[Rollo]

Torpedoes cannot target fighters. That is actually an advantage in larger fleet battles (given that you have enough PD, of course). While APB or PPB ships waste shots on fighter stacks, torpedoes will deal with the real threats (i.e. ships). So they are, in a sense, 'cannon fodder skipping' weapons.
I ran some tests a while back that showed if fighters are involved, the battle can swing decisively in favor of the torpedo using fleet.

[Atrocities]

This topic has turned out to be one of the best strategy threads I have read in a good long long time.