Ship Design for Dummies, weapons, armor, shields, oh my!

[oleg]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Geo, I normally research to DUC V and PDC III before getting Chemistry or armor. Destroyers with 5-6 PDCs slaughter all early game fighter/missile rush strategies.

Ok, well that makes sense. But if that's the case why bother ever researching armor at all? Go to LC's and start researching shields. You need Physics anyway for all the better beam waepons, you can't stick with DUC's forever. And the only other good thing to come from the chemestry branch is resource manipulation. And you can do without that for a long time. Am I wrong? I am just trying to figure out when the armor should come into play.

Geoschmo

---

DUC -> PPB. Now the only protection for a long time is armor !

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by oleg:
DUC -> PPB. Now the only protection for a long time is armor !

The only protection against PPB, yes. But if my tests so far are accurate you are better off with no protection at all and just putting on more weapons. That's entirely the question I am trying to figure out.

Geoschmo

[Suicide Junkie]

The more tests I run on the this the more I get to the conculsion that for fleet combat less armor or even no armor and all weapons is the way to go. What am I missing?

Weapons and engines do add quite a bit of bulk to ships. Weapons contribute to both offense and defense, and are thus especially effective.

In comparison to the minimum 460kt of hitpoints on an LC, a few pieces of armor don't have a whole lot of impact.
Also keep in mind that you should subtract 10 points off the strength of armor, since if you don't put armor, there will still be 10 hitpoints from whatever else you put in there instead.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
In comparison to the minimum 460kt of hitpoints on an LC, a few pieces of armor don't have a whole lot of impact.

Ok, so maybe what I am seeing then makes sense? At least for the stock game? Perhaps the extra damage done by mounts makes standard armor pretty much a bad idea for combat ships? That would explain why it seems to give some value in destroyers but not in the LC's.

Or am I reading too much into it?

Geoschmo

[oleg]

[ July 25, 2003, 20:05: Message edited by: oleg ]

[Silent Sorrow]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
In comparison to the minimum 460kt of hitpoints on an LC, a few pieces of armor don't have a whole lot of impact.

Ok, so maybe what I am seeing then makes sense? At least for the stock game? Perhaps the extra damage done by mounts makes standard armor pretty much a bad idea for combat ships? That would explain why it seems to give some value in destroyers but not in the LC's.

Or am I reading too much into it?

Geoschmo

---

I'd say that once you get in to mounts, which show up on the LCs, armour is only marginally effective but it is effective. Simply because if it soaks up even a little bit of damage overall that might be the difference between surviving one extra round to do damage or spread incoming damage (across more ships), and not surviving.

In a fleet battle, clearly, this can make a huge difference. But as others have pointed out, it also makes a difference who fires first.

In my latests games I've found myself tending to move away from putting armour on my LCs and instead going all weapons (because the LCs are kind of expandable so I go for max damage, though I do put on PDCs). But anything above that starts to get armour, usually about three Armour IIIs, which I think is about 90 hit points--good enough to deflect much or most of the hit of one heavy mount weapon.

[oleg]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Or am I reading too much into it?

Geoschmo

Not at all. Stock SEIV is very much offence orriented. May be the rational is that battles should be over in 30 turns ? If ships are ultra tough, battles can end in almost a draw. Then for example inferior fleet can survive warp point battle and move into the system. Or for example allow planet killer hide in the corner while other ships battle for 30 turns and then blow planet.

---

[Nocturnal]

I don't look for a complete super ratio, I think that's a waste of time. Instead, I think in advance what I want each of my ship designs to do. For example, many of my ships are supposed to outrange the enemy, and stay just outside his firing range to dish out the damage. Those ships will get missiles and long range guns, and little to no armor (EMC I do give every combat ship, because it's so space efficient. I give combat sensors only to ships that use several direct fire weapons, including point defense turrets.)

For a missile ship, I'll give them loads of missiles and a handful of point defense cannons. No armor. Sometimes I'll escort these with dedicated point-defense ships that have about ten point-defense cannons, a combat sensor, and one "anti-ship" gun because otherwise they'll run into the corner and I want them to stick with my combat ships. These don't typically get armor.
Then there's the "Tank" type of ship. I'll give this one anywhere from 120 to 300 tons of [organic if I picked that] armor, and a few guns. Those have orders to move in close to the enemy to soak up the damage while the other ships shoot at them.

Carriers have at least 90 tons of armor to protect their cargo; they also have heavy guns and orders to behave as a combat ship. Noncombat ships typically recieve one organic armor and one lightning beam so they can beat enemy noncombat ships, and protect themselves for a little while if isolated.
I built an "armored dropship" class with 5020 cargo space, three fighter bays, and 270 tons of organic armor. This can take a planet without damaging its facilities, and if the planet isn't guarded by combat ships, it wouldn't even need an escorting fleet.
Fighters and troops never recieve armor (too useless on them) but may recieve one small shield if the enemy is consistently shooting them down.

My research path always goes towards good weapons first, then armor/shielding, and then specialized weapons like engine and weapon destroyers and shield-depleter boarding craft. Those Last use one heavy shield depleter, a tractor beam, boarding parties, a couple of point defense cannons and all the armor I can cram into them.

Remember: armor gets damaged first so the reason you're putting it on there is to protect the other components. You armor ships that need to be fast, or ships that have weapons you don't want destroyed, or any ship that carries close to its maximum cargo capacity into battle. It also should be applied liberally to ships that want to move in close-range to fire their weapons.

I do believe in "a good offense", but I also don't like losing ships. So I try to defend them enough to survive the battle (even if they're useless at the end of it.) I also try to design their defenses such that they'll be useful throughout the entire battle. My all-purpose "Orca" class battleship has 120 tons of organic armor, 4 [heavy I think] lightning beams, 6 parasites, and 4 point defense cannons. This is effective against many combinations of enemy ships because it can fight at any range. In my TDM game against the AI, one of these is conquering an entire front of advance by itself (With one troopship) and is at Legendary (40%) status. Because the organic armor heals itself after battle, he's never had to go back for repairs. But otherwise I'd just accompany it with an "Angel" class repair ship.
I recently designed a bigger model all-purpose ship with more armor and bigger weapons (enveloping acid globules so it doesn't need to get close at all.) I believe I called that a "Juggernaut".

In the army once they asked us what the difference was between armor and artillery. I jokingly answered, "armor has little guns and a big body, and artillery has big guns and a little body." The armor are supposed to protect the artillery, who dish out the damage.

[Stone Mill]

Just a note on shields... your designs will be vulnerable to ship capture without them. (Especially an WP ambush). So even though they are bulky and inefficient, I include just one even on my early designs.

If I see that a player is not using shields... I try and take advantage of this... hello boarding parties!

[PvK]

I think it depends somewhat on the exact match-ups. To-hit chances are important. For example, if your ships are hard for the enemy to hit, then being able to survive a few hits (or even just one) and still fight as well, can multiply a ship's effectiveness. On the other hand, if your ships are going to get pounded regularly, then it might make sense to try to get in as many shots as possible before they die.

Also consider cost. Weapons are more expensive than armor, especially organic armor, so the side with armor may be able to build and maintain more ships. Emissive armor looks better than regular armor until you consider the cost - it only seems to work well if you have a lot of tonnage to dedicate to it, and get one or two and then combine with lots of regular armor (not organic). Even then it's not that great, especially against powerful mounted weapons.

I can think of several other considerations which apply in different circumstances, too.

PvK