Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Late game chaff
| Re: Late game chaff |
Sun, 16 November 2003 16:53   |
|
|
|
Well, I'll put some thoughts into this for you (this is long);
Bombers (for IS) -
Granted, the mini-bomber is the cheapest to build. Better yet, it's gateable. The only drawback is if you want to destroy your enemies infrastructure quickly since you then have to build 2 designs - one as a pop killer with Cherry Bombs and one with LBU's. Personally, I'll just build lots of cherry bomb mini bombers.
AMP Nubs,
Genearlly, I would go with the less caps, more AMP's option anyway. Additionally, when going against enemy AMP's I'd make sure that I have higher init so I can fire first. i.e. some computers.
Now, there is a limit as to how many capacitors will be effective. Since the maximum extra dp's the caps can provide is 250% of the combined beam weapons damage points (dp's) 2598 (for 6 AMP's) - i.e. 6495 dp's, 10 capacitors would be 6738.5 dp's. More than 250%. 9 caps is the most effective number of capacitors.
Replacing a slot of shields with deflectors - the trade-off is simple mathematics. An enemy AMP nubian with 12 AMP's and 3 caps would do 6916 damage points when it fires. With RS you lose 2100 dp of shields in exchange for reducing the enemy's damage per shot by A MAXIMUM of 2075 dp's (1 slot of deflectors). Your shields would only regenerate 210 dp's. Note: These calculations are based on the ships being at range 0. At range 2 the maximum damage will be 10% less, 5% less at range 1 - i.e. 6224 for a shot at range 2 and 6570 at range 1.
Therefore, the beam deflector slot would be worth the trade-off in shield strength for anything that takes more than one shot to die. Of course, you would be more vulnerable to missiles with the fewer shields.
Lets take a look at the proposed options for using 5 slots:
6 AMP's and 9 caps = maximum 6125.98 (say 6126) dp's
12 AMP's and 3 caps = maximum 6915.86 dp's
9 AMP's and 6 caps = maximum 6903.77 dp's
So for using 5 slots of the nubian, 12 AMP's and 3 caps is the best choice for power.
Generally, I would prefer to use one more slot for weaps and get more bang along with computers to out init my opponent.
Just one last little note about deflectors - anything more than 9 of them is also a waste.
Armageddons vs. Omega
Jammers work on a 1% to 1% match with computers. 3 jammer 50's are equivelent to 5 jammer 30's. Effectively, one jammer 50 cancels out one battle nexus. It's a little more complicated though.
You can never increase your accuracy to more than 100% and you can not reduce accuracy to less than 0%
if you look at the Omega torp, 6 battle nexus computers increase the accuracy to 100%. When looking at the calculations, 7 battle nexus computers is the absolute maximum that will provide an increase in accuracy. Conversely, 7 jammer 50's is the absolute maximum that will provide a decrease in accuracy. If you put 9 nexus computers on 1 ship and 7 jammer 50's on the other the torp will have it's original accuracy of 80%. There will be no gain from the extra 2 computers. Conversely, any jammers over 7 aren't going to reduce the opposing ships torpedo accuracy. Additionally, that 7th computer or jammer is only AT BEST worth 1%. 9 jammer 50's against 6 battle nexus's does no better than 7 jammer 50's.
Simply put, attacking ships with 6 or more computers are going to have the base accuracy of the torps against jammer 50's IF you have 6 jammer 50's. 3 of 10 armageddons will hit and 8 of 10 omega's will hit. 3 Armageddons = 1575 dp's, 8 omegas = 2528 dp's. The rest is down to range 6 versus range 5 and whether the shields are dead or not. In general, omega's are cheaper and a little better.
Incidently, you would need 2 slots of BSC's to equal one slot of nexies - and 6 BSC's use more germanium than 3 nexies.
And your last item CHAFF...
Well, in the middle game I have known players to use dd's for chaff. The main reason for this is to have chaff that can survive a missile strike. However, an armageddon missile or omega torp that hits will kill even a dd chaff ship so - don't bother. There is no dd chaff that can be built that will su
...
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Late game chaff
By: Robert on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: LEit on Wed, 05 November 2003 10:57 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
|
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Kotk on Wed, 05 November 2003 13:44 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: iztok on Thu, 06 November 2003 08:05 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
|
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: LEit on Thu, 06 November 2003 15:04 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
|
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Micha on Fri, 07 November 2003 07:19 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Ptolemy on Sun, 16 November 2003 16:53 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: LEit on Sun, 16 November 2003 20:04 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Robert on Mon, 17 November 2003 03:02 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Robert on Mon, 17 November 2003 03:06 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: iztok on Thu, 20 November 2003 02:11 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Robert on Thu, 20 November 2003 06:28 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Micha on Wed, 19 November 2003 19:13 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: LEit on Wed, 19 November 2003 20:15 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Micha on Thu, 20 November 2003 14:19 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: LEit on Thu, 20 November 2003 16:01 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Micha on Thu, 20 November 2003 18:27 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: LEit on Thu, 20 November 2003 19:58 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Micha on Wed, 19 November 2003 18:28 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: zoid on Wed, 19 November 2003 23:38 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: LEit on Thu, 20 November 2003 00:51 |
|
|
Re: Late game chaff
By: Robert on Thu, 20 November 2003 06:23 |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jun 11 01:31:36 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
