Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...) |
Wed, 17 March 2004 16:41 |
|
Orca | | Chief Warrant Officer 1 | Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003 Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 16:05 | "BTW a BET race should be carefull when I field AMP Nubs."
Nub=cheapest armour, we are talking pre-nub.
BET isn't so bad in the nub era... Sure the nub hull is double but lots of the toys that go in it cost less. These things have a way of influencing designs and balancing out.
A BET who plays horde cheap ships pre-nub, may go for more expensive toys in his more expensive nub hull to counter the suddenly nub horde opponents.
If you weren't my friend, I obviously wouldn't want you to live long enough to have nubs.
|
GACK. BET is HORRIBLE in the nubian era. And sucks everywhere else too.
In the nubian era in particular: your best weapons cost twice as much, your hull costs twice as much. You're spending a lot more for a lot less - everything that *isn't* a weapon or a shield on a nubian costs pennies (with the exception of comps). Nubians - in particular beamer nubians - only have a few expenses. Shields, beams (AMPs almost invariably, perhaps leavened by Synchro Sappers), capacitors, deflectors, jammers, maybe an overthruster. Plus engines of course. Where is the bulk of your cost located? In the hull, the shields, the beams, and maybe the engines. Your hull and beams will be doubled in cost. Will your other components drop enough to make this worthwhile? Not a chance.
Before the nubian era, you pay through the nose if you only get the tech you need...which means you need to buy an extra level of tech before you can start effectively start building. That extra research hurts when you need to start building (and if you don't burn the resources for the research, you're paying double in MINERALS too for each item you build - and early on, you don't have enough). Once you have got your transportation moving, you still need to worry about war tech. You need to hit con 10 before you can effectively start building cruisers - just the hull. Con 8 for even the AD8. Weapons 11 for colloidals (13 for jihads!), energy 7 (for wolverines), energy 8 (for capacitors), energy *11* for bears...
There is *no* time when BET isn't hurting you, slowing down your ability to rapidly respond to your opponents' advances and to exploit their weaknesses. NAS at least doubles your non-penscan range and provides a hefty point bonus. BET buys you a measly 5% decrease on the cost of items you most don't care about because they're totally obsolete! It doesn't even provide that large of a point bonus!
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
|
|
|
Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...
|
|
|
Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...
|
|
|
Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...
By: iztok on Fri, 05 March 2004 08:28
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Micha on Thu, 11 March 2004 03:26
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Ptolemy on Tue, 16 March 2004 14:52
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Tue, 16 March 2004 22:36
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Staz on Wed, 17 March 2004 11:15
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Wed, 17 March 2004 12:59
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: iztok on Wed, 17 March 2004 15:30
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Wed, 17 March 2004 15:45
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Orca on Wed, 17 March 2004 16:28
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Wed, 17 March 2004 16:05
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Orca on Wed, 17 March 2004 16:41
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Orca on Wed, 17 March 2004 19:22
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Wed, 17 March 2004 20:15
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Wed, 17 March 2004 20:33
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: LEit on Wed, 17 March 2004 21:20
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Wed, 17 March 2004 21:36
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: iztok on Thu, 18 March 2004 04:44
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Thu, 18 March 2004 10:54
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Kotk on Thu, 18 March 2004 12:20
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Thu, 18 March 2004 18:28
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: Kotk on Fri, 19 March 2004 08:00
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Fri, 19 March 2004 09:10
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: mlaub on Fri, 19 March 2004 13:31
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Fri, 19 March 2004 15:03
|
|
|
Re: Cruisers vs Battleships (Re: Maybe i am a little thick but...)
By: multilis on Thu, 18 March 2004 13:34
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jun 30 05:39:57 EDT 2024
|