Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Miniaturization musings
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Tue, 02 November 2004 07:45   |
|
| Kotk | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| BackBlast wrote on Mon, 01 November 2004 19:57 |
Beamer nubian cost: 249 I, 453 B, 180 G, 1062 R 220kt weight
Missle Nubian cost: 874 I, 246 B, 452 G, 971 R
Some standard designs on my end.
Range 0 BC:
TGMS, 7 deflectors, 4 tech 14 shields, 3 Blunderbuss (other weapons slot is empty)
Cost: 27 I, 49 B, 42 G, 100 R 183kt (garantee last move)
Doomsday DN:
TGMS, 18 tech 14 shields, 4 jammer 20s, 4 BSC, 16 Doomsday missles (8 slots), 2 jets (for 2 1/2 movement).
Cost: 652 I, 196 B, 279 G, 547 R
BackBlast
|
 Okay i dunno why i cant have TS-10 on my nubs if You used full tech 26 WM miniaturization on your BC and Dread?
Even with IS-10 why you fool people with such double nubian cost?
Lets take random IT who got NRSE and no BET...
Beam nub cost at full house 26 is:
120 irons 225 borons 111 germs 549 resources
Missile and nub cost is:
719 irons 216 borons 335 germs 624 resources
Shame on you.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Tue, 02 November 2004 11:46 |
|
 BackBlast |
 | |
Messages: 215
Registered: February 2003
Location: A Rock | |
|
| Quote: |
Even with IS-10 why you fool people with such double nubian cost?
Lets take random IT who got NRSE and no BET...
Beam nub cost at full house 26 is:
120 irons 225 borons 111 germs 549 resources
Missile and nub cost is:
719 irons 216 borons 335 germs 624 resources
Shame on you.
|
Please don't infer that I was unfair. I did not give full tech 26 miniturization to the WM. I didn't take great care to make the techs as accurately as possible, and since the nubian race was given a lead in shields, I took no issue with using higher tech engines. I don't have the time to create an 'ideal' testbed right now. Propultion tech for both races was around 22 (I used generalized research, all normal for the testbed) and maxed weapons and construction, yielding ~22 in all other fields. I did use JOAT for the 2nd race, and so the WM was tech 21 is most and the JOAT 22. I think this was a reasonable decision on my part, not having all day to verify numbers for you.
| Quote: |
Okay i dunno why i cant have TS-10 on my nubs if You used full tech 26 WM miniaturization on your BC and Dread?
|
I did give the WM the CE LRT, which was stated in the first post. You did read it didn't you? CE+BET+scoops = very cheap engines. If we limit prop tech to 17, I think costs would not move terribly in the nubian's direction at all (20% less miniturization for the nubian engine, 25% less for WM, small enough to not matter much).
Remember, we are not talking about building max tech nubians, I've only seen one game where max tech nubians were ever built. This of course, will depend a lot on universe size - I don't play bigger than medium. At any rate, I am not talking about max tech nubians. If you are, we must respectfully disagree and your point is noted but irrelivent in the current discussion. Please don't try and drag me outside of my own claims to prove me wrong and then laugh at me. It makes for a dull discussion.
BackBlast
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Tue, 02 November 2004 16:16 |
|
|
|
IMO BET power may be better off with jihads rather than fancy missiles near end game and focus on making missile ships faster. Jihads are much more useful against chaff, not possible to cost effectively stop them with fancy chaff. Jihad can be nearly as cheap per damage with max miniturization.
Nubs have their weaknesses, it is not possible to be well defended against beamers, missiles AND have a nasty attack. Most likely weakness is against missiles, chaff is usually used to cover this, battle computers tend to be better than jammers.
BET likely will build nubs at times, the overall ship cost isn't that much higher if you stick to lower than 26 level components.
So Mr. BET likely wants to:
a) have a way to deal with enemy chaff. First strike it OR overwhelm it with jihad shots OR be far enough back that you can't reach it.
b) bring down the enemy shields quickly. I suggest dedicated sappers that survive long enough to get at least one shot. (Range 3, light, high init). An alternative is range 1 beamers that first strike (light, your enemy may rush into them going for your missile ships and chaff). Another alternative is combo range 1+3 beamers with max damage orders, with the range 3 used to take out chaff. A last alternative is gattlings, useful against enemy with multiple types of beamers.
3) especially if shields are down and chaff is worked around, missile can make quick work of the enemy.
4) use BET advantages with building chaff including fancy chaff to neutralise his missiles.
5) try to get enemy playing init wars. Non-nubs have higher base init. Anything to stretch those 36 slots... jack of all trades is master at none.
Likely you end up with BET trying to win more with missiles while non-BET tries to win with beamers.
Likely with BET you have the smallest warships, so you can spread some out and drain nubs from his main fleet chasing you. (Or do some sniping/minesweeping when he doesn't chase).
BET has cheaper support ships so you can build more. Minelayers, minesweepers, transports, scanning, bombers, etc.
Since BET will likely have higher bio to improve miniturization, learn how to Smart Bomb.
...
I try to be different. I played my first two games with BET. I managed to win both.
[Updated on: Tue, 02 November 2004 16:25] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Tue, 02 November 2004 20:49 |
|
|
|
| BackBlast wrote on Tue, 02 November 2004 15:34 |
| Quote: |
IMO BET power may be better off with jihads rather than fancy missiles near end game and focus on making missile ships faster.
|
Yes, this might be an interesting approach. Between Jihads, Jugs, and Dooms.. Which one gives the best results, I'm not inclined to use Jihads because of the increased associated computer costs with the larger number of ships - but it may pay off not needing any specialty chaff killers.
BackBlast
|
Too many expensive missiles on the same ship means you have less armour per cost (get destroyed faster), and higher attractiveness (harder to cover with chaff).
With my chaff so cheap, I was wanting to keep my ship attractiveness down.
My solution when conserving germ with BET was to use older computers sometimes. Chaff doesn't have jammers and some of other enemy ships often arn't jammed that well either.
Examples of budget ships I have used mid game:
Metamorph with 8-11 regular battle computers and 4-5 missiles (often jugs)
Gallean with 3 missles and 7 computers - fully gateable, less attractive.
(both of the above fully gatable and can transport in pinch)
Battleship with 12 jihads and 6-7 regular battle computers (could afford better missiles and computers, but prefered these low attractive, high armour ratio. BET makes these more affordable).
The enemy tends to only jam some of his ships really well, chaff is never jammed well. My fancy missile and fancy battle computer missile ships tend to be at least somewhat gatable and help with the jammers... the budget ships focus on the rest.
[Updated on: Tue, 02 November 2004 20:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Wed, 03 November 2004 03:36 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| multilis wrote on Wed, 03 November 2004 02:49 |
Battleship with 12 jihads and 6-7 regular battle computers (could afford better missiles and computers, but prefered these low attractive, high armour ratio. BET makes these more affordable).
|
From my experience in my last game Dark Ages 3 I see the point of using BET. Those older Jihad BBs of opponents costed (without BET) 60% of iron of my Jugg ones. But without jammers how would you make them less atractive than your chaff after they'd lose shields? All of a sudden they'd start falling instead of chaff.
Besides, high tech can make wonders. My Jugg BBs in that game had 4 SBC and 3 jammers 20. Some time ago I'd say a good all-around design  . But when I've seen the new design of one of my opponents I started to worry. Same Juggs, but 4 jammers 30 and 3 Nexi  (yeah, they were 7 levels ahead in elec - tech trading among players raking 2, 3 and 4 can make wonders too  ), effectively rendering my missile BBs (almost) useless: when dueling only with them his ships would shoot with 52% accuracy, while my ships would return fire with only 18%. That'd make about 3 to 1 kills in his favor  . No BET could help there. Only lots of chaff and fast beamers. Fortunately I had beamers with good sappers. But he was a SD... 
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Wed, 03 November 2004 11:13 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
But without jammers how would you make them less atractive than your chaff after they'd lose shields?
|
Either you need something else still around and more attractive when they lost shields, or you protect them from losing shields.
Having less cost per missile ship means higher armour and shield ratio to cost. (though less firepower/cost) More shields means harder to take out shields.
BET can easier make fancy chaff or cheap beamers that are more attractive at stage with missile boats are shieldless.
I tend to defend the chaff/missile boats with a beamer line of defence. In CFLKIAB I used cheapo horde of multirange beamer battleships, an enemy rushing would face range 2 and 1 weapons, while enemy keeping distance would have shields sapped and some beamer damage while my chaff and missile ships did the main job. (Doothinker was thinking about attacking me with range 0 cruisers)
In Trans with battleships banned, my first mass produced chaff/missile boat defenders were galleons with 3 x gattling, 3 x Mark IV Blaster (range 2), Long Hump 6 engines, 4 x man-jet, Bear Neutrino shields. I was heavily intersettled so ships doubled as protection against suprise backstab packet attack (made upload pop dodge possible). I felt combat speed of 2.0 was best to reach chaff-attackers but be far enough back if enemy tried to first strike me with range 1 super-hitters.
| Quote: |
his ships would shoot with 52% accuracy, while my ships would return fire with only 18%. That'd make about 3 to 1 kills in his favor . No BET could help there. Only lots of chaff and fast beamers
|
Keep in mind the BET ships suggested are likely twice the armour and shields per cost of ship (though less firepower).
BET can in mid game allow bigger beamer hordes with cheaper weapons, an an extension of early horde where not all weapons slots are filled... thus your suggested fast beamers would be more likely to survive long enough to take the missiles out.
If only low attractive dedicated sappers reach his missile boats, but his sappers are destroyed before reaching yours, then that makes his ships 4 x as weak to missiles compared to before, which gives the cheapo missiles without jammers the edge.
....
One important detail against jammers I forgot... missiles that are jammed still reduce shields somewhat. I learned the hard way with my heavily jammed ultrastations in Trans.
[Updated on: Wed, 03 November 2004 12:00] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Wed, 03 November 2004 15:15 |
|
| Kotk |
| Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| BackBlast wrote on Tue, 02 November 2004 18:46 |
| Quote: |
Even with IS-10 why you fool people with such double nubian cost?
|
I think this was a reasonable decision on my part, not having all day to verify numbers for you.
|
Im not sure why you do it but when i say your numbers are wrong they usually are. So ... i asked why you say double nub cost you dodge it with talking about CE with your WM? Did you delete the files so it takes day to verify? 
I will verify then FOR YOU!  Lets take some game file where i had no max tech then. Race is JOAT Tech is only: 22/26/17/26/19/7 Far from 22 everywhere but thats ok to verify someones overbloated claims. 
I make beam nub:
IS 10, 3 CP shields, 3 jammer 16, 12 deflectors, 9 capasitors and 9 AMPS.| YOU SAY |
Beamer nubian cost: 249 I, 453 B, 180 G, 1062 R 220kt weight
|
Cost: 156 irons 267 boraniums 183 germaniums and 711 resources 
I make Missile nub:
IS 10, 6 CP shields, 6 jammer 16, 6 deflectors, 6 battle super comps, 2 thrusters and 9 Arma missiles.| YOU SAY |
Missle Nubian cost: 874 I, 246 B, 452 G, 971 R
|
Cost: 769 irons 258 boraniums 435 germaniums and 830 resources
So i continue to accuse you double there with beamers and add to missile nubs too! You even claim you actually had 22 in prop and elec?  Thats nonsence!!!  Maybe your nubian building race had BET too or something??? I have never had beam nubian that costed tons of stuff and resources like you claimed in your post.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Wed, 03 November 2004 21:40 |
|
| BackBlast |
| |
Messages: 215
Registered: February 2003
Location: A Rock | |
|
Seems I accidently did make BET on the JOAT. Double cost hulls and shields seem to have been the difference. It was an accident, but it also throws off the battles and ship numbers stated earlier.
| Quote: |
i asked why you say double nub cost you dodge it with talking about CE with your WM?
|
Look at the quote, it was in responce to you saying that WM unfairly had full miniturizations. There was no dodging.
| Quote: |
Did you delete the files so it takes day to verify?
|
I opened the game, looked at the numbers on the ship and they matched the ones I posted. It wasn't until now I realized I accidently checked BET. My comment was based on the various tech levels that could exist that might change the cost, I don't have time to make testbed after testbed to satisfy what you seemed to be asking.
| Quote: |
ok to verify someones overbloated claims.
|
I would say you've been a little less than curtious, yes I messed up the numbers in the test bed. Maybe it's the apparent language barrier, but your tone just rubs me wrong. At any rate the original claims remain untested, seeing how you have not run them yourself 'overbloated' is somewhat of a stretch. Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I tire of this.
BackBlast
[Updated on: Wed, 03 November 2004 21:56] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Thu, 04 November 2004 02:19 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| multilis wrote on Wed, 03 November 2004 17:13 |
If only low attractive dedicated sappers reach his missile boats, but his sappers are destroyed before reaching yours, then that makes his ships 4 x as weak to missiles compared to before, which gives the cheapo missiles without jammers the edge.
|
4 X as weak? Cap ship missiles do twice the damage without shields. Where did you get the second twice?
Besides, you included two coinditions in your statement. I couldn't. His ships were a counter-design to mine, and there were no gates allowed to send my counter-couter design quickly to the front. An usual application of murphy's combat laws.
| Quote: |
One important detail against jammers I forgot... missiles that are jammed still reduce shields somewhat. I learned the hard way with my heavily jammed ultrastations in Trans.
|
It is pointless heavily jamming orbitals, as the max jamming for them is 75%. When real FP (Juggs an better) is out they usually die with shields still on. But if you intended to make only a first-shoot-sucker then that approach may work, because installations on orbitals costs half the price, and you don't need to include weapons.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Thu, 04 November 2004 15:07 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
It is pointless heavily jamming orbitals, as the max jamming for them is 75%. When real FP (Juggs an better) is out they usually die with shields still on. But if you intended to make only a first-shoot-sucker then that approach may work, because installations on orbitals costs half the price, and you don't need to include weapons
|
The game was Trans so no battleship hulls. I was HE and planet was deep in the enemy core (no gates or reinforcements possible). I think he was using cloaked rogues for missile boats (not many computers).
I didn't expect to have a shot at winning so I had suicide galleon missile attackers for his bombers (enough computers to get first shot), suicide specialty chaff killers (metamorphs with no shields) and my existing jihad ultrastation was fitted with lots of jammers.
I believe I came very close to winning, enemy didn't send as many ship as expected. My ultrastation fell because of shield depletion from his missiles that missed but still hurt shields. A few more shields would have made the difference.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Tue, 27 April 2010 21:20 |
|
|
|
| multilis wrote on Mon, 07 June 2004 19:03 |
Any tech not needed is counted at being level 0 required so every level above 0 helps, with the exception that you DON'T get penalized 200% originally if you have tech at 0 in that field.
|
I think this applies only to items that have have no tech requirements in any field.
Example (with a non-BET race): Mole skin shield, base cost 1/0/1/4
- no tech required.
Research Energy to level 3, Cow Hide Shield now available at base cost (2/0/2/5)
Cow Hide Shield drops to 2/0/2/4 at Energy level 6, then to 1/0/1/4 at Energy level 10, even though BioTech is still at level 0.
Mole Skin Shield cost remains at 1/0/1/4, even though Energy is 10 levels above the minimum (if Energy were the only relevant field it would have dropped to 1/0/1/2 (4 * (100% - 10 % 4%) = 4 * 0.6 = 2.4, rounded down to 2.)
Now research to level 4 in all fields. Only when the last field reaches level 4 does the Mole Skin Shield drop to 1/0/1/3.
I think the X-Ray laser is preferable to the blue laser for chaff ships for the same reason (blue laser requires all 6 fields to miniaturize, X-Ray laser requires only Weapons tech.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Fri, 02 July 2010 05:46 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
| finnw wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 11:20 |
| multilis wrote on Mon, 07 June 2004 19:03 |
Any tech not needed is counted at being level 0 required so every level above 0 helps, with the exception that you DON'T get penalized 200% originally if you have tech at 0 in that field.
|
I think this applies only to items that have have no tech requirements in any field.
Example (with a non-BET race): Mole skin shield, base cost 1/0/1/4
- no tech required.
Research Energy to level 3, Cow Hide Shield now available at base cost (2/0/2/5)
Cow Hide Shield drops to 2/0/2/4 at Energy level 6, then to 1/0/1/4 at Energy level 10, even though BioTech is still at level 0.
Mole Skin Shield cost remains at 1/0/1/4, even though Energy is 10 levels above the minimum (if Energy were the only relevant field it would have dropped to 1/0/1/2 (4 * (100% - 10 % 4%) = 4 * 0.6 = 2.4, rounded down to 2.)
Now research to level 4 in all fields. Only when the last field reaches level 4 does the Mole Skin Shield drop to 1/0/1/3.
I think the X-Ray laser is preferable to the blue laser for chaff ships for the same reason (blue laser requires all 6 fields to miniaturize, X-Ray laser requires only Weapons tech.)
|
You're right (the only ones where miniaturisation goes off all fields is where they have --None-- as tech reqs), but this thread is 6 years old, so all the rest of them probably know that by now.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 10 14:30:21 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
