Home » Old Game Forums » Bab5v2 team » BB designs of the Free
BB designs of the Free |
Sat, 09 June 2007 14:10 |
|
|
It would be good to have a common BB-design BUT
* the East needs BBs asap
* the East has EP
To get BBs asap, the first need to be built with weap14. To avoid the usual problems and pitfalls with using a mixup of range 2 and 3 weapons, I would rather go for a dedicated sapper design. Another advantage of this, 1 BB-design for each weap-level: 14, 15, 16
1) Mark the Blaster
=> needs weap 14
weight: 357 kt, battel speed: 2.25
cost (for JOAT): 757res, 200i, 305b, 145g
2) Sapped Advance
=> needs weap 15
weight: 337 kt, battel speed: 2.25
cost (for JOAT): 777res, 200i, 85b, 265g
3) Fear the Free
=> needs weap 16
a) Possible EP-design if a dedicated Sapper design will be used.
weight: 353 kt, battel speed: 2.25
cost (for JOAT): 937res, 200i, 405b, 169g
b) can be built by every IA-member
=> needs prop 12 or Trans-Gal which raises the costs significantly
weight: 345 kt, battel speed: 1.75
cost (for JOAT): 876res, 210i, 345b, 134g
Caps, jams, speed:
* If a battlespeed of 2.25 or higher can't be reached, I'd judge 1.75 a minimum for a laser-design.
* Jams are fine but if you use jams on your laser-design, you better use jams also on your missile-ships
* Jams are ONLY good vs missiles, they don't do anything vs enemy-laser-ships (VA has started to massbuilt a laser-design)
* Caps are ALWAYS of use
* chaff can be used vs missiles
Thus I usually rather go for caps instead of jams.
Curious to see other suggestions and designs.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Sat, 09 June 2007 15:31 |
|
Skaffen | | Senior Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006 Location: Germany | |
|
OK, some thoughts from my end of things:
-Iīll have En 14 in 2 turns, so at least the W16-design should be based on Gorillas since thatīll probably be the ship we build most of. Itīll take much longer for the West to get the EP, actually Llort donīt have it at all but I certainly want to use it and Iīm several years away.
-Iīm against an A8 design, warp 10 jumps are just too important. My main CC-fleet has made 3 or so in a row and will do another one now and Iīve lost more CCs to warp damage than enemy fire.
-For the W16 design Iīd suggest 6 caps and an SBC in the front slot, that way we gain init and I donīt think any of us has a serious G-shortage thatīd prevent this. First fire guaranteed is easily worth the 10% less damage. The W14 has higher init anyway so no SBC needed. We could think about putting a beam deflector in the front slot for the W14, dishing out damage is normally not a BBs problem, itīs taking it..
-I like speed 1.75. With 2.25 you move 3 on the first round, putting the ship in range of starbase beams. With 1.75 you can also fire on bases during round 2 with only one shot coming in. Then again weīll be using a lot of battlefield crowding anyway so speed is not as important as in normal games. I donīt know how important 2.25 is for chaff sweeping though, never had to deal with that in a real game.
-We should keep an eye on the missile ship designs and the ammount of missile boats they field. So far theyīre very beam heavy so no jammer needed. But if they go for dooms theyīll have init anyway and jammers could help a lot then. Iīve seen designs with 7 SBCs now, better than the old one with 6. We should look how much of the 6/7 variant they build, if the 6 is in the majority the 7 SBC is the clear counterdesign.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Sat, 09 June 2007 18:51 |
|
|
Skaffen wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 21:31 | -Iīll have En 14 in 2 turns, so at least the W16-design should be based on Gorillas since thatīll probably be the ship we build most of.
|
If we can get en14 in time, great! But in terms of tech trading and time, it's a minimum of 4 turns to trade en14, 2-3 turns for weap16 and an unknown number of turns for prop-tech... before we can even START building BBs (well, at least a shared design). That's quite some time.
Quote: | -Iīm against an A8 design, warp 10 jumps are just too important. My main CC-fleet has made 3 or so in a row and will do another one now and Iīve lost more CCs to warp damage than enemy fire.
|
The A8 or Transgal is the only engine we ALL have access to.
* Pak have no NRSE (no IS10)
* Llort has no EP
* Gaim, Spoo, Llort have NRSE (no scoops)
If we are very lucky, Llort might pick up the EP during tech trading but such a chance is very low.
Nevertheless, since 3 of us have the EP, it might be a good idea to agree on an EP-design nevertheless. There are enough other ships Llort can produce.
Quote: | -For the W16 design Iīd suggest 6 caps and an SBC in the front slot, that way we gain init
|
3-4 more turns of tech trading to gain elec11.
It all depends when we want to start building our first shared BB-design... at around 2500 or before?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Sat, 09 June 2007 19:54 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
Altruist wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 00:51 |
Skaffen wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 21:31 | -Iīll have En 14 in 2 turns, so at least the W16-design should be based on Gorillas since thatīll probably be the ship we build most of.
|
If we can get en14 in time, great! But in terms of tech trading and time, it's a minimum of 4 turns to trade en14, 2-3 turns for weap16 and an unknown number of turns for prop-tech... before we can even START building BBs (well, at least a shared design). That's quite some time.
|
Keep in mind also elec9 needed for the EP, only Llort has that (or better) ATM. That's at least 5 more years, and we need the BBs 5 turns ago!
Altruist wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 00:51 |
Skaffen wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 21:31 | -Iīm against an A8 design, warp 10 jumps are just too important. My main CC-fleet has made 3 or so in a row and will do another one now and Iīve lost more CCs to warp damage than enemy fire.
|
The A8 or Transgal is the only engine we ALL have access to.
* Pak have no NRSE (no IS10)
* Llort has no EP
* Gaim, Spoo, Llort have NRSE (no scoops)
If we are very lucky, Llort might pick up the EP during tech trading but such a chance is very low.
|
The Transgal is something I've never used; no warp10 same as AD8, twice the cost of the AD8 in resources, more iron, some bor while the AD8 cost none meaning higher attractiveness and less bor for weap ...
However it's true that in a clumped galaxy there is probably more need for warp10 jumps and limited gate usage means fuel usage gets more important (either more SFX or FX for the AD8) and warp speed as well ... Still not in favour of the Transgal we have the EP which offers *and* warp10 *and* better fuel usage (even scooping) and even slightly cheaper than the transgal ... (and obviously better than the very expensive IS10)
Quote: | Nevertheless, since 3 of us have the EP, it might be a good idea to agree on an EP-design nevertheless. There are enough other ships Llort can produce.
|
Exactly.
Quote: |
Quote: | -For the W16 design Iīd suggest 6 caps and an SBC in the front slot, that way we gain init
|
3-4 more turns of tech trading to gain elec11.
It all depends when we want to start building our first shared BB-design... at around 2500 or before?
|
Too late too late too late ...
Unless we go for a temp design now and weap16 later ... BTW I'm planning on not doing any research but only BB building until my minerals run out ...
After that there's con14-con16 to make BBs cheaper, or prop16 for terra ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Sun, 10 June 2007 03:06 |
|
|
Skaffen wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 01:15 |
Quote | For the W16 design Iīd suggest 6 caps and an SBC in the front slot, that way we gain init
|
Or put a BC, easy to counter-design but if they already have a substantial investment in their Parting ships theyīll probably not go that way.
|
I couldn't agree more - shooting first is a major advantage.
Quote: | It all depends when we want to start building our first shared BB-design... at around 2500 or before?
|
To build a common EP based design it'll take a few years anyway since everyone needs the Prop & Elec techs.
A Bear/EP/MkIV design will take 2 yrs (Pak), 3 yrs (SPOO) & 7 yrs (Gaim). I think it may be a good idea to agree such a ship in the east at least. But it should be considered temporary - once Gorillas are available a lot less ships need be built to defeat a given enemy fleet regardless of whether you're using W14 or W16 (see comment further down).
Quote: | As long as weīre mostly holding territory for the next 5 years or so we donīt need a combined design since weīll never link up anyway. Only if we strike via gate we need that.
| TrueQuote: | The issue of gate damage still isnīt decided, keep in mind that if we go that way our ships will start battle 50% damaged and never have a chance to repair. Making shields even more important...
| Also trueQuote: |
What do you guys want? Iīm really close to En14 which would give a 40% in shield strength, but if you all want to build an En10 design whatīs the point of researching that? Then I could put the points in El or Prop to catch up sooner. But early on I thought we had agreed that everybody should stick to their main field...
|
I DEFINATELY want Gorillas
MkIV v HB
A MkIV BB fleet WILL defeat the same sized enemy HB fleet PROVIDED THAT the MkIV fleet has battle speed => 2.25 AND the MkIV fleet moves last. That means that the EP advantage is huge since it provides a 2.25 ship that is 20Kt lighter - moving last is not a given since weights are within 10% but the lighter ship will win (move last) most of the time & cost a lot less.
One more thing: Is it worth thinking about a cloaked design? Maybe not if tachyons are not far away but thought I'd check your opinion.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Sun, 10 June 2007 10:07 |
|
Skaffen | | Senior Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006 Location: Germany | |
|
OK, I didnīt use Michaīs fancy spreadsheet, just my own which I was more familiar with.
First question to be asked: whatīs the limiting factor?
Current stockpiles for Gaim are approx. 50,000 I, 60,000 B, 40,000 G with almost equal mining rates >5,500 k/y. For building power I assumed 30,000 effective res.
As ships I compard the following designs, all using EPs and Gorilla shields using RS values. Assumed tech was 14/14/13/13/11/7 with W16 for the Heavy-Blaster version.
I threw in CCs as well which would guarantee the last move plus offer more shielding capability.
-BB 12 Mark IV, 7 caps: 208 / 265 / 154 / 729
-BB 16 Mark IV, 7 caps: 208 / 324 / 154 / 805
-BB 16 Heavy Blaster, 4 sappers, 6 caps, 1 BC: 208 / 485 / 187 / 1073
-CC 4 Mark IV, 4 gorillas, 2 caps: 78 / 94 / 65 / 279
-CC 6 Mark IV, 4 gorillas: 78 / 124 / 53 / 309
Conclusion 1: B is the limiting factor
I have to admit this surprised me, didnīt expect that. Of course if we build a substantial missile wing, then I iron will quickly become more important! If 30K res are used for building minerals would run out in 6 years of building (without further mining of course, stretching the supplies to approx. 10 years but support ships, sappers and some missile power also have to be built)
With this I get the following max. number of ships to be built, disregarding that minerals are still mined since mining rates are the same for all minerals so no fundamental shift to another design will be seen, only overall higher numbers.
BB 12 Mark IV: 225 -> 450,000 armor, 441,000 shields, 346,500 beams
BB 16 Mark IV: 184 -> 360,000 armor, 360,640 shields, 378,300 beams
BB 16 Heavy Blaster: 123 (!!!) -> 246,00 armor, 241,000 shields, 230,000 beams (+ 184,000 sapper)
CC 4 Mark IV: 637: -> 445,900 armor, 624,260 shields, 202,500 beams
CC 6 Mark IV: 483: -> 338,100 armor, 474,400 shields, 191,200 beams
The W16 version comes out a bit too badly since for equivalent sapping power another 22 sapper BBs would have to be built. These are low on B and need mostly G though so would fit more or less within the limit.
CCs can hold their own, they have the same amount of armor with almost twice the number of shields, unfortunately also at almost half the firepower. But since high sapping power is cheap and battle field crowing makes it easier to assure that even range 2 BBs are in firing range Iīd say BBs are the way to go.
Also using only 12 weapon slots is beneficial for IS: for 10% less firepower you get 20% more armor and shields so 40% more defensive power alltogether. Plus: itīs another 8 kt less weight to make closing in easier.
This of course uses up quite a bit more I and G. The 12 Mark IV fleet uses about 20k more I and 10k more G than the W16 one. So roughly 20 juggernaut BBs more could be built at the costs of 100 beamer BBs. For Dooms or Armas Iīd say: close call, in the W16 age the beamers should still have the upper hand, especially since chaff is in wide usage and battlefield crowding could put the missile ships in immediate beamer range.
I assume that Llort and Pak mineral stockpiles are more or less similar, please check against your numbers if things differ a lot.
Since 3 of us 5 are IS and the Drakh cannot contribute significantly to the fleet size because of their low overall resources Iīd suggest that IS econ and increased weapon costs should dominate the overall design considerations.
Conclusion 2: on pure production numbers W14 beamers with only 12 slots used seem to be the way to go. Now some in-game benchmarking should be done to see how they really fare with their range 2 beams against range 3 fleets.
Another design consideration: since BBs have a lot of firepower compared to their defenses maybe a beam deflector instead of a 7th cap would be better. I leave that to the benchmarkers to decide...
As for Bears / Gorillas: Clearly Gorillas would be much better, you have to check the situation in the East on whether you need a stopgap design or not and how things can be sped up by buying some tech levels out of field of specialization. Iīll certainly do that after En 14. If we really go Bears we need a serious combined offensive plan to make it worth downgrading for the Gaim / delaying 2-3 more years.
[Updated on: Sun, 10 June 2007 11:09] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Sun, 10 June 2007 18:35 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
Skaffen wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 16:07 | OK, I didnīt use Michaīs fancy spreadsheet, just my own which I was more familiar with.
|
Not "mine".
Quote: | Conclusion 1: B is the limiting factor
|
<g> Well, I haven't checked my mineral stocks yet but I already assumed bor would be the limiting factor, seemed logical, as said 25% weap cost hurts ...
Quote: | I have to admit this surprised me, didnīt expect that. Of course if we build a substantial missile wing, then I iron will quickly become more important!
|
IS building missile ships hurts them even more, in general you'd want as much missiles per computer ... Missile ships are not supposed to suck up fire ... chaff and beamers should ... and gathering the stack without gates would also take longer.
(I have however used that, arma BBs with only 12 missiles but that was as IT where I could use them (also) for defensive play because of gating them around ... being IT takes away the time to gather the stack)
Quote: | The W16 version comes out a bit too badly since for equivalent sapping power another 22 sapper BBs would have to be built. These are low on B and need mostly G though so would fit more or less within the limit.
|
Right, forgot to clearly mention the sheet also does not take into account other fleets, but like Skaffen says the sapper BBs don't use much bor ...
Quote: | Also using only 12 weapon slots is beneficial for IS: for 10% less firepower you get 20% more armor and shields so 40% more defensive power alltogether.
|
Exactly what I was trying to say.
Quote: | Plus: itīs another 8 kt less weight to make closing in easier.
|
Does not matter, weight diffence has to be at least 15 or 20%, we can't make that unless going FM or some other light engine (WM can do that).
Quote: | This of course uses up quite a bit more I and G. The 12 Mark IV fleet uses about 20k more I and 10k more G than the W16 one. So roughly 20 juggernaut BBs more could be built at the costs of 100 beamer BBs. For Dooms or Armas Iīd say: close call, in the W16 age the beamers should still have the upper hand, especially since chaff is in wide usage and battlefield crowding could put the missile ships in immediate beamer range.
|
Just as a note: we should have "some" missile ships ...
Quote: | I assume that Llort and Pak mineral stockpiles are more or less similar, please check against your numbers if things differ a lot.
|
Checking later ...
Quote: | Since 3 of us 5 are IS and the Drakh cannot contribute significantly to the fleet size because of their low overall resources Iīd suggest that IS econ and increased weapon costs should dominate the overall design considerations.
Conclusion 2: on pure production numbers W14 beamers with only 12 slots used seem to be the way to go. Now some in-game benchmarking should be done to see how they really fare with their range 2 beams against range 3 fleets.
|
"Easy" to say: without good battle crowding the weap14 will have it harder because the range3 gives some free shots. With good crowding the weap14 have equal firepower vs an equal stack and with first shot that means a win ...
Quote: | Another design consideration: since BBs have a lot of firepower compared to their defenses maybe a beam deflector instead of a 7th cap would be better. I leave that to the benchmarkers to decide...
|
Doubt if a defs enemy-reduction makes up for the loss in own improvement ... And as Altruist said: "Caps are ALWAYS of use", facing missile ships defs don't help ...
Quote: | As for Bears / Gorillas: Clearly Gorillas would be much better, you have to check the situation in the East on whether you need a stopgap design or not and how things can be sped up by buying some tech levels out of field of specialization. Iīll certainly do that after En 14. If we really go Bears we need a serious combined offensive plan to make it worth downgrading for the Gaim / delaying 2-3 more years.
|
I really doubt Pak can wait another +5 years to start producing ships ... My four centre planets were given up 20 years ago, I can not risk losing Jupiter since that means my HW and surrounding planets will be comprimised as well, and they are my core, beyond them I'm more scattered and planets are not mature yet, some still even very young ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Sun, 10 June 2007 19:34 |
|
|
Quote: |
Quote: | This of course uses up quite a bit more I and G. The 12 Mark IV fleet uses about 20k more I and 10k more G than the W16 one. So roughly 20 juggernaut BBs more could be built at the costs of 100 beamer BBs. For Dooms or Armas Iīd say: close call, in the W16 age the beamers should still have the upper hand, especially since chaff is in wide usage and battlefield crowding could put the missile ships in immediate beamer range.
|
Just as a note: we should have "some" missile ships ...
|
Agreed.
But that's something to do when weap 16 comes up.
Quote: |
Quote: | As for Bears / Gorillas: Clearly Gorillas would be much better, you have to check the situation in the East on whether you need a stopgap design or not and how things can be sped up by buying some tech levels out of field of specialization. Iīll certainly do that after En 14. If we really go Bears we need a serious combined offensive plan to make it worth downgrading for the Gaim / delaying 2-3 more years.
|
I really doubt Pak can wait another +5 years to start producing ships ... My four centre planets were given up 20 years ago, I can not risk losing Jupiter since that means my HW and surrounding planets will be comprimised as well, and they are my core, beyond them I'm more scattered and planets are not mature yet, some still even very young ...
|
While the Spoo have a bit more depth in their territory to retreat into, as mentioned at another place, more than 80 BBs from Hyak alone are moving against the East. So it is rather urgent to build ships.
One thing I am confused about: Why is the speed of our EP-BB only 2.25? It should be 1.75 + 4x0.25
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Mon, 11 June 2007 00:20 |
|
Skaffen | | Senior Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006 Location: Germany | |
|
Micha wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 00:35 |
Skaffen wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 16:07 |
Plus: itīs another 8 kt less weight to make closing in easier.
|
Does not matter, weight diffence has to be at least 15 or 20%, we can't make that unless going FM or some other light engine (WM can do that).
|
It matters, of course it doesnīt guarantee last movement but it helps improve the odds.
AFAIU ship mass is a random +/- 20% for each ship in the battle, so theirs would vary betwen 301 to 452 kt while ours could be anywhere between 272 and 409. With 8 kt more itīd be from 279 to 419.
The lower we pull this interval, the higher the chances of moving last. If I get the time Iīll rummage in my brain section and/or book on statistics to pull out the exact odds of us having a high and they having a low weight at the same time, must be substantially higher than 50% though. Ah, I see in my mailbox that John already did it, my 20% come from the strategy guide btw.
Quote: |
Just as a note: we should have "some" missile ships ...
|
Sure, but no point in that before W16.
Quote: |
"Easy" to say: without good battle crowding the weap14 will have it harder because the range3 gives some free shots. With good crowding the weap14 have equal firepower vs an equal stack and with first shot that means a win ...
|
Well, even one on one in >50% of the cases weīll have lower weight and fire first in the first round itself: we move 3, they move 2 and fire 2 is in range! Problem is that if we lose the weight advantage we get to fire only in round 3 because move 2.25 doesnīt allow firing at every square in round 2. I guess Iīll have to dig out some statistics or maybe John or Patrick know the formula to give us the exact chances. It might even be worth putting the extra jet to make sure that we fire on round 2 at least which would mean only one free shot and not 2. Or think about CCs again because they always move last...
As for Patrickīs question, no idea why it gives only 2.25, very annoying, CCs also have that speed only.
Quote: |
I really doubt Pak can wait another +5 years to start producing ships ... My four centre planets were given up 20 years ago, I can not risk losing Jupiter since that means my HW and surrounding planets will be comprimised as well, and they are my core, beyond them I'm more scattered and planets are not mature yet, some still even very young ...
|
Of course, but would you be able to contribute significantly to a combined attack fleet in the foreseeable future as hard-pressed as you are now? If not and if you donīt just want to give up your space for an all-or-nothing attack then you can easily start with the bears and upgrade to Gorilla designs later. The large combined fleet is needed mostly for shield coverage, killing power is already very high. With Gorillas giving 40% more shields do you think you could improve the overall fleet size by 40% if we go bears?
[Updated on: Mon, 11 June 2007 00:24] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Mon, 11 June 2007 07:28 |
|
|
Quote: |
Quote: | Just as a note: we should have "some" missile ships ...
|
Sure, but no point in that before W16.
|
So far I haven't done any calculations but if we want to build beamers AND missiles... that definetly changes the formula or rather what's our limiting ressource: probably iron then.
It would not really be efficient to build iron-hungry 2x6 beamers then.
Quote: |
Quote: | I really doubt Pak can wait another +5 years to start producing ships ... My four centre planets were given up 20 years ago, I can not risk losing Jupiter since that means my HW and surrounding planets will be comprimised as well, and they are my core, beyond them I'm more scattered and planets are not mature yet, some still even very young ...
|
Of course, but would you be able to contribute significantly to a combined attack fleet in the foreseeable future as hard-pressed as you are now? If not and if you donīt just want to give up your space for an all-or-nothing attack then you can easily start with the bears and upgrade to Gorilla designs later. The large combined fleet is needed mostly for shield coverage, killing power is already very high. With Gorillas giving 40% more shields do you think you could improve the overall fleet size by 40% if we go bears?
|
Let's phrase it this way:
IF the East can somehow fence off this new VA-attack, the surviving BBs will be a major part of our contribution to a combined force.
If the East can't fence off the VA-attack... well, we do not need to worry that much about combined designs afterwards.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
minerals |
Mon, 11 June 2007 07:46 |
|
|
Minerals 2485, overview
* Pak's mineral on surface are better than shown in this table, there is quite an amount in orbit (what a nasty IS-trick to confuse us poor JOATs)
* East is shortest on germ which is irrelevant for beamer production and then, unfortunately, rather short on bora.
* West has a surprisingly amount of germ and the biggest heap of bora.
[Updated on: Mon, 11 June 2007 07:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
EP and battle speed |
Mon, 11 June 2007 17:41 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
Altruist wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 01:34 | One thing I am confused about: Why is the speed of our EP-BB only 2.25? It should be 1.75 + 4x0.25
|
You guys are not playing Stars! long enough!
mch
James McGuigan wrote on 7 okt 2000, 09:00 in rec.games.computer.stars | Subject: Re: Mystery Trader
"Heikki Poso" <h...@rock.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:ovr95sbp60.fsf@rock.helsinki.fi...
> "James McGuigan" <James....@ntlworld.com> writes:
> > Enigma Pulsar (Warp 10 rammscoop engine, free travel at warp 5, 10% cloaking + 1/4 movement in
> > battle)
> Actually, it is +1/8 movement in battle per engine, rounded up to the next 1/4
> movement (for example, Nubian and BB both get +1/2 movement).
The part info says +1/4 movement, but I tried using the enigmar pulsar on an empty hull and taking
weight into account, found that you are correct.
The Enigma Pulsar adds 1/8 movement rounded up.
1 or 2 engines = +1/4
3 or 4 engines = +1/2
5 engines = +3/4
I did this by comparing movement value when changing between the EP and IS-10 engines but kept the
weight the same.
The strange thing is I never noticed this before.
--
Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason,
But for those who can, the rules become nothing more than guidelines,
And live their lives governed not by rules but by reason.
- James McGuigan
|
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Mon, 11 June 2007 18:20 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
Skaffen wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 06:20 |
Micha wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 00:35 |
Skaffen wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 16:07 |
Plus: itīs another 8 kt less weight to make closing in easier.
|
Does not matter, weight diffence has to be at least 15 or 20%, we can't make that unless going FM or some other light engine (WM can do that).
|
It matters, of course it doesnīt guarantee last movement but it helps improve the odds.
|
... ok, it matters if you like "odds". Personally I don't. Either you go for guaranteed last move or you don't. And if you don't: always test worst case scenario ...
Same goes for init, if you can't guarantee init than test battles only looking at the results of the ones in which you fire second ...
I'm not saying you should never take the risk, if the price is worth it or if the situation is desperate, well ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Mon, 11 June 2007 18:23 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
Altruist wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 13:28 |
Skaffen wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 06:20 |
Quote: | I really doubt Pak can wait another +5 years to start producing ships ... My four centre planets were given up 20 years ago, I can not risk losing Jupiter since that means my HW and surrounding planets will be comprimised as well, and they are my core, beyond them I'm more scattered and planets are not mature yet, some still even very young ...
|
Of course, but would you be able to contribute significantly to a combined attack fleet in the foreseeable future as hard-pressed as you are now? If not and if you donīt just want to give up your space for an all-or-nothing attack then you can easily start with the bears and upgrade to Gorilla designs later. The large combined fleet is needed mostly for shield coverage, killing power is already very high. With Gorillas giving 40% more shields do you think you could improve the overall fleet size by 40% if we go bears?
|
Let's phrase it this way:
IF the East can somehow fence off this new VA-attack, the surviving BBs will be a major part of our contribution to a combined force.
If the East can't fence off the VA-attack... well, we do not need to worry that much about combined designs afterwards.
|
... exactly ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Tue, 12 June 2007 19:49 |
|
|
I have completed a detailed analysis of BB designs & in-game costing based on ship requirements to kill a fleet of 50 PofS ships.
The number of ships required to marginally defeat such a fleet are precise in the case of 12,16 & 20 MkIV designs but are estimated in the case of 13 & 14 MkIVs. 12 MkIVs is a poor choice because such a ship has a higher attractiveness than a Phased Sapper design using 20 weapons (since a stack of those accompanying the MkIV stack is relatively small they are easily
killed if more attractive). However, the minimum number of MkIV weapons above 12 provides the best result. A fleet of MkIV BBs accompanied by a Phased Sapper BB fleet where weapon ratio between the 2 fleets is about 3:1 is easily best. Surprisingly, Bears are competitive with Gorillas (tho Gorillas are still valuable, particularly on bases).
Therefore, the best design (for both EP & Llort IS-10)is:
13 MkIV, 7 EC (6 EC,OT for IS-10), 8 Bear.
Battle Sims used to determine number of IA ships needed to defeat the enemy fleet are based on default BO. No simulations were done with 13 or 14 MkIV designs - it was only after I determined the attractiveness problem with 12 weapon designs that I saw a need to estimate requirements for a 13/14 weapon
design. Also, requirements to win if VA moves last & if VA moves last in the 2nd battle round as well (chances vary from round to round) are estimated & rough (I used 1.7 & 2.2 as ratios compared to the case where IA moves last in round 1).
I Don't have a site where I can upload ship design images so see email.
[Updated on: Mon, 18 June 2007 07:46] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Tue, 12 June 2007 22:08 |
|
|
AlexTheGreat wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 01:49 | 12 MkIVs is a poor choice because such a ship has a higher attractiveness than a Phased Sapper design using 20 weapons
|
Ah! Great to know.
As I already mentioned below: If we also want to build missile ships, are then the 2x6 MkIV-BBs really the most efficient?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Tue, 12 June 2007 22:27 |
|
|
Altruist wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 22:08 |
AlexTheGreat wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 01:49 | 12 MkIVs is a poor choice because such a ship has a higher attractiveness than a Phased Sapper design using 20 weapons
|
Ah! Great to know.
As I already mentioned below: If we also want to build missile ships, are then the 2x6 MkIV-BBs really the most efficient?
|
I think that torp ships are a good idea but I can't see them forming more than 10% of our forces. I think that Bor is still the limiting factor.
I would support a 13 (or 14 if you like) weapon ship.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Wed, 13 June 2007 11:15 |
|
|
Micha wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 07:05 |
AlexTheGreat wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 01:49 | 12 MkIVs is a poor choice because such a ship has a higher attractiveness than a Phased Sapper design using 20 weapons (since a stack of those accompanying the MkIV stack is relatively small they are easily killed if more attractive).
|
First: hm, isn't it a *good* thing if the 12*weap14 is more attractive than the shield sapper? The 12*weap14 BB will form the largest stack, so they can take some hits on their shields and if damaged be repaired. The sappers will *die* even fired upon with a small stack of enemy BBs. They are suicide ships but if less attractive that would be a good thing since they won't die and won't need to be replaced for every battle! This is opposite of what you are saying?
|
No, a small stack of attractive ships will be killed in most battles & that means that the sappers have to replaced. Because the weap14 stack is larger they can take more beam fire before ships are destroyed - if we lose a battle we will lose all, if we win a battle then, in most cases, we lose relatively few ships. The difference between a marginal loss & marginal win is substantial in ship loss terms (see TipOver sheet in CostPerEnemy S/S in which, for a given ship design, "Our Lost" in green shows a marginal win & in orange shows a marginal loss (-n = n enemy ships survive). Results are very accurate. It takes only a small increase in our fleet size to achieve a decisive victory.
Quote: | Second: attractiveness also seems to dependd on stack size. A small stack of unattractive ships will be shot and killed with a large stack of more attractive ships sitting in range as well. (Kinda would defeat my first point. )
|
I haven't really checked that out but that may be correct. My testing used fleet where the sapper ships comprised 17-25% in ship terms & around 25% in weapons terms. The more attractive ships were attacked first in all cases.
Quote: | Third: attractiveness can change fast, get a level of extra weap and it might already turn around.
|
If attractiveness is reasonably close then I agree that the comparison could change. Maybe it's best to use 14 weap14 weapons to increase the difference a bit & so reduce the chances of that happening.
Quote: | Fourth: the 12*weap14 is more attractive to who? The enemy beamer? To enemy sap weapons? The enemy jugger missile ship? The next-gen weap20 missile ship? You have a different attractiveness % for each of these ...
|
The relativity remains the same regardless of whether the enemy weapon is beam, sapper, missile or torp (accuracy for missile/torp checked for 0.1% to 99.9%). I checked that - see the "target" S/S I distributed where all relative ships are shown. Just change the enemy weapon as you wish. The 1st sheet shows IS with RS, the 2nd shows IS without RS (sorry Patrick, I shoulda had a 3rd sheet showing Joat RS).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: BB designs of the Free |
Wed, 13 June 2007 11:40 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
AlexTheGreat wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 17:15 |
Micha wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 07:05 |
AlexTheGreat wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 01:49 | 12 MkIVs is a poor choice because such a ship has a higher attractiveness than a Phased Sapper design using 20 weapons (since a stack of those accompanying the MkIV stack is relatively small they are easily killed if more attractive).
|
First: hm, isn't it a *good* thing if the 12*weap14 is more attractive than the shield sapper? The 12*weap14 BB will form the largest stack, so they can take some hits on their shields and if damaged be repaired. The sappers will *die* even fired upon with a small stack of enemy BBs. They are suicide ships but if less attractive that would be a good thing since they won't die and won't need to be replaced for every battle! This is opposite of what you are saying?
|
No, a small stack of attractive ships will be killed in most battles & that means that the sappers have to replaced. Because the weap14 stack is larger they can take more beam fire before ships are destroyed - if we lose a battle we will lose all, if we win a battle then, in most cases, we lose relatively few ships. The difference between a marginal loss & marginal win is substantial in ship loss terms (see TipOver sheet in CostPerEnemy S/S in which, for a given ship design, "Our Lost" in green shows a marginal win & in orange shows a marginal loss (-n = n enemy ships survive). Results are very accurate. It takes only a small increase in our fleet size to achieve a decisive victory.
|
(partial and quick reply since I'm at my mums dial up, and can't open the files you sent)
... so you are actually saying:
"12 MkIVs is a poor choice because such a ship has a *LOWER* attractiveness than a Phased Sapper design using 20 weapons"
(which would more sense since you "solve" the problem by adding bor/resources to the 12*weap14 BB) ...
(and that's what I meant with my comment "This is opposite of what you are saying? " and we are in fact agreeing already )
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 14 22:30:49 EDT 2024
|