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 19:22 |
|
Orca | | Chief Warrant Officer 1 | Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003 Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
BET plays different. Just as -f, AR, etc.
|
No. BET plays badly. Like bi-immune, OBRM AR, etc. Come to think of it, it's a favorite of Oberlander too.
multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
And it does give a huge bonus in certain areas.
<...>
Cost savings... get 16 techs above something like a starbase or a conventional battle computer and it costs 80% less (compared to 64% less). That means a ship may cost 20 resources or minerals rather than 36 in the ideal BET range. Suddenly shielded flak has bite for cheap and starbases can instantly pop up.
|
No. The difference is 80% versus 75% when fully miniaturized, and you miniaturize slightly faster (at 5% per level instead of 4% per level). This is largely inconsequential except when building hundreds to thousands of ships that have had a chance to miniaturize. And you pay a very heavy price to get it.
multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
Things like bombers and large freighters cost less.
|
Very marginally so. And in exchange your hot-off-the-research-labs ships cost a hell of a lot more. This can make a major difference if you're under pressure or trying to put your opponents under pressure. Barbian horde really isn't a full-game ship design philosophy that can work when your opponents are paying attention and all else is equal.
multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
My gateable doomsday missile metamorphs with 12 regular battle computers didn't get a chance to have their day, but would have been effective if they did against ships that jammed for my budget jihad battleships (that were less attractive than my budget multirange beamers).
|
Oooh lord. Save me now. Do you know what those gatable ships would have done against equivelent battleships? Died. Base init on a BB is 10. Plus 7 comps (even assuming they don't throw SBCs on) means at you're still looking at an init deficit of 3. Your missiles are a bit more accurately aimed, but you're using metamorphs. 500dp armor. A total of 3 GP left, split into 2/2/1. Did you use 2 missiles? 3? A single shield? You've nearly maxed out your computers on that thing, but you still can't match a BB for init. You *could* better a BB's init, but you'll be left unshielded, with a single missile in the front of your metamorph. Your base armor is vastly lower - much easier to punch kills through shields. Your *shields* are vastly inferior - anything that gets into range is going to get kills on you. Don't think that you'll be able to keep them out of harm's way by screening them either - I made that mistake years ago in Reclamation and lost half my nubian missile ships for my trouble. You *need* defenses on your weapons platforms. Metamorphs also need a large number of engines for their weight in firepower. Much like cruisers. More expenses. Nowhere near as efficient in terms of resources/unit of firepower or defense.
multilis wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 18:46 |
My budget multirange beamer horde ate up some high tech range 3 beamers with the help of a few budget older missile metamorphs.
Low tech destroyers held their own against higher tech cruisers, and sometimes did more than held their own.
And that is with my gateless HE having a delay in getting ships to the front.
|
Let's just put it this way - don't try this against LEit, OWK, myself - or the replacement Desquis player. MK IV cruisers can take on battleships, for a time. But they need to have started building sooner, built up a hefty fleet of them, and be mowing over the person that's building up battleships because those battleships can shred MK IVs once they start getting built in numbers...destroyers, in limited circumstances can take on cruisers. But with a bit of thinking, cruisers *will* knock them out. It's even more exagerated when taking on battleships.
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: Sat Jul 06 20:00:34 EDT 2024
|