Torpedo question

[Fyron]

That 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.

I don't get it. Nobody thought of this earlier? I thought PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned. But this only applies if you have the computer fight the battle with the orders you've issued, right? I'm not sure because I've not had a battle large enough that I didn't fight it myself.

No. That is only an issue IF the APB using fleet has maximum range strategies set (which is NOT the default strategy). Otherwise, the ships will always move in close before they fire (especially since the secondary movement type for optimal range is point blank...), rarely actually firing at range 8 (unless there are so many ships that they can not get closer, of course). Using Max Range is only a good idea if you are using missiles or if you have the religious Talisman, or if you have a severe advantage in combat bonuses (such as a few levels ahead in the CS/ECM race, and having large racial combat bonuses)

[spoon]

Originally posted by Taera:

Just a note, torpedo ships beat PPB&NSP ships. tested.

Hmm, I tested and got the opposite (of course!)

I made battleships, fairly usual loadout (speed 10, 480kt of weapons (8 Heavy PPBs vs 6 Heavy Quantum Torps), 3 phased-shields V, and both def armors.

Tried them out in the simulator... with 25 and then 50 ships per side. I then swapped sides in case that mattered, and did it over again. PPBs won ~ 38 out of 40 fights...

[ November 12, 2003, 23:38: Message edited by: spoon ]

[Fyron]

Perhaps you should test based on equal costs of ships on each side, rather than just equal tonnage of weapons? Give each side as many ships as they can build for 200,000 resources (total), for example.

[Taera]

actually, my tests were early attempts to find a workable counter to rage's designs - they were the first to use PPB & NSP from early on till end game. I've found out that cost-wise only torpedoes could realy defeat those ships (tests included armor, of course, as well as phased shields and maxed tech)

[Fyron]

NSP is a weak weapon to begin with, only useful in a minor support role.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
NSP is a weak weapon to begin with, only useful in a minor support role.

Not sure about this. One hit from a massive mount NSP can fry the interior of most ships, leaving the empty armour shell It does not really mater how good and powerfull was that ship. It is a toast in just one shot.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Perhaps you should test based on equal costs of ships on each side, rather than just equal tonnage of weapons? Give each side as many ships as they can build for 200,000 resources (total), for example.

I used 1,000,000 resources as the base:

If you include all resources, then the torps win 4 out of 5 times (44 PPB ships vs 56 Torp ships).

If you just compare mineral costs, then PPB ships win most of the time (60 PPB ships vs 63 Torp ships).

Question is, then, how much the Rads cost hold up your ship production. Although also important: you might be able to build a decent torp ship one turn quicker than a decent PPB ship just based on the mineral difference (for my tests, PPBs ship cost 17,550 and Torp ships cost 15800. At that point in the game, my shipyards are usually building at about 4500, so the likely answer for me is no...)

Torps did better than I thought they would, but I still think they could use a boost, especially if you factor in their research cost...

[Fyron]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
NSP is a weak weapon to begin with, only useful in a minor support role.

Not sure about this. One hit from a massive mount NSP can fry the interior of most ships, leaving the empty armour shell It does not really mater how good and powerfull was that ship. It is a toast in just one shot.

---

But that requires using Baseships, which are extremely innefficient... And then, the weapon can not fire again for what, 3 more rounds? Think of how much more damage "normal" weapons could do in that time. Even though they have to get through shields (and armor, which is nothing) first, a shield depleter or two will take care of that nicely.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Perhaps you should test based on equal costs of ships on each side, rather than just equal tonnage of weapons? Give each side as many ships as they can build for 200,000 resources (total), for example.

I used 1,000,000 resources as the base:

If you include all resources, then the torps win 4 out of 5 times (44 PPB ships vs 56 Torp ships).

If you just compare mineral costs, then PPB ships win most of the time (60 PPB ships vs 63 Torp ships).

Question is, then, how much the Rads cost hold up your ship production. Although also important: you might be able to build a decent torp ship one turn quicker than a decent PPB ship just based on the mineral difference (for my tests, PPBs ship cost 17,550 and Torp ships cost 15800. At that point in the game, my shipyards are usually building at about 4500, so the likely answer for me is no...)

Torps did better than I thought they would, but I still think they could use a boost, especially if you factor in their research cost...

---

Now test those torp ships against APBs. And do some MBs for good measure.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... And then, the weapon can not fire again for what, 3 more rounds? Think of how much more damage "normal" weapons could do in that time...

How can they do anydamage if they are all dead in one round ?