Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » chaff question
| chaff question |
Sat, 31 May 2008 21:38  |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Would using high-init cheap Anti-Matter Torpedo ships (e.g. Cruiser-class vessels) be an effective chaff-killer?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: chaff question |
Sat, 31 May 2008 22:31  |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
But the point is that AMTs are very cheap (3kt I), and they won't overkill the chaff (60 damage, kills in one shot without too much overkill, unless it's a shielded frigate), so you could build tons, and take out all the chaff in one volley. In terms of Iron alone, one AMT is about the same cost as one chaff.
[Updated on: Sat, 31 May 2008 22:33] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: chaff question |
Sat, 31 May 2008 22:47 |
|
| Adacore |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai | |
|
Hmm... the overkill is 75%, I think, on unshielded chaff (45 armour on a frigate compared to 60 damage from the torp, assuming unshielded chaff). On shielded chaff I guess it might work though. Testbed it and see?
[Updated on: Sat, 31 May 2008 22:47] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: chaff question |
Sat, 31 May 2008 23:17 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
That's 33% overkill, not 75% btw. The problem is that you need two hits to kill shielded chaff.
My reasoning is that in the late game, you could build a ship which had 5 x Nexi and 30 x Anti-Matter Torps, to kill chaff for a 1-stack-Nexi-Omega design. The advantage over using an AMP design is that the latter can't fire until the third turn against retreating chaff (and the second against attacking chaff), and even then might not kill all of them if you run into someone using 2 wolverine shields and RS. The design I just said will always fire on the first turn, even against retreating chaff, as it has move 1 3/4. Also, it's impossible to pull the "attractive to missiles but not beams" on these guys, as they use missiles themselves.
I'm not particularly experienced, so forgive me for asking: How do you testbed this? Play two races in the same game?
Edit: The reason I say late game only is because of the high (50) resource cost of AMTs, as well as their huge biotech requirements.
[Updated on: Sat, 31 May 2008 23:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: chaff question |
Sat, 31 May 2008 23:57 |
|
| Adacore |
| Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai | |
|
I'm not exactly experienced either, but testbedding is done by playing two (or probably more) races in the same universe, force-generating for a few hundred turns (leaning on the 'enter' key in the host window or running a script). Then, if you need to, spending a while going through manually waiting for MTs to show up so you can collect all the parts.
Design the race(s) to be one world wonders tech normal/cheap, use GR, then give them the best settings you can (pay special attention to LRTs that give/disallow tech or combat abilities like IFE, NRSE, RS and, if you're being really picky, ARM, ISB and NAS). You can use the 'negative' LRTs as a point mine too (LSP at the very least, gives points for no negative effect given you're force-genning hundreds of years). Some people advocate spending a lot of time in this stage designing a 'real' race, but I don't see the value - it just means you'll have to force-gen for longer.
I've got a 16 player testbed (2 of each PRT except JoAT and PP, because they get no unique tech/abilities in combat), but it's not quite finished yet - I stopped force-genning at tech-22 or so in order to start going after MT toys and I'm still missing a couple of them. I also made the mistake of going for expensive tech with good factories/mines which, while it'll probably be useful for building large test fleets quickly, means it is taking 2-3 times as long as it should've done to get max tech.
Barry Kearns wrote an article on testbed creation a decade ago which is up at the Stars!-R-Us database (now hosted on Starsfaq): http://www.starsfaq.com/articles/sru/art189.htm
EDIT: I have no idea how I screwed up and put 75% overkill (well, I know how, but I had no idea I was such an idiot). The point on relative attractiveness is, of course, valid - I honestly have no idea whether it would be a good idea or not. It may be, in some situations, which is why I recommend testbedding it.
And yeah, if you have AMTs then it'll be late game - nobody has Bio 21 until what I'd call late game, not even TT'ers.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 June 2008 00:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: chaff question |
Sun, 01 June 2008 00:12 |
|
|
|
If you want to testbed the concept, I will supply you with the universe of a complete testbed with all the races, prt's and mt parts included. you can pick and choose the races you want to build ships for, buid however many ships you need and generate a few turns to set up the battle you want to see.
The only problem I see with AMT's as chaff killers is the one torp one ship kill aspect. Think about it - chaff is deployed in high numbers - say 500-1000 or more in large battles. That's a LOT of torps. Speed 2.25-2.5 beamers are so effective in killing chaff since the beams don't target individual ships. Overall, range 3 beams are a much better choice I believe for chaff killing.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: AMT question |
Sun, 01 June 2008 01:06 |
|
| LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
If you assume that iron is your main limit, AMTs are better then Omegas:
AMT nubian: 6 slots AMTs, 2 BMCs, 1 J30, 1 BD, 1 CPS, 1 jet
Omega nubian: 2 Omega, 1 Nexi, 2 J30, 4 BD, 2 CPS, 1 jet
They're both gatable (Omega at 325kT and AMT at 307).
The AMT costs about twice the resources, but about 1/3 as much iron, and 1/2 the germ. And has a bit more then half the power. If your limit is iron, and you have no real use for resources, then it can make sense.
Vs an Arm nubian:
Arm nubian: 4 Arms, 1 Nexi, 2 J30, 2 BD, 2 CPS, 1 OT (only need 2)
The Arm nubian has more power per iron, but probably less defenses (you'll have 6 AMTs to match the power of 1 ARM - that's a lot of nubian armor). The AMT is gatable with minimal losses, whereas the Arm would take a bit more losses and repair time.
And the AMT doesn't need to worry about chaff. If you need gatable torp ships, or arn't limited in germ (which is unlikely, usually all my late game races stop building factories to save germanium), AMT nubians can make sense.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: AMT question |
Sun, 01 June 2008 03:33 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
@Ptolemy: But AMTs don't suffer from that, because their power is low anyway. Against shielded frigate chaff, it's 1.5 AMTs per chaff, so that rule doesn't even rear its head. (Each nubian slot will kill 2*no. of ships in chaff every turn).
@LEit: That's a pretty screwed up comparison you've drawn there. You'd probably put a lot more Omegas on an Omega nub, sacrificing gateability for efficiency, such as...
5 Omega
2 Jam30
3 CPS (or 2 if RS)
1 Nexi (or 2 if RS)
1 jet (or an extra Omega if no chance of Arma kite)
Also, I wasn't talking about AMTs as mainline weapons, only as dedicated chaff killers. While AMT nubs are gateable, they don't do enough damage/iron compared to Omegas when used in similar designs, except against chaff.
Arms are obsolete once all sides have nubs due to jammers, no?
@all: When you say use range-3 beams for killing chaff, do you mean a ship with 8 slots MegaD, 3 slots caps, 1 jet (or something along those lines) or do you mean a normal beamer nub with MegaDs instead of AMPs? I have objections to both:
High-power low-defense nubs like the former can be blown up without doing anything if the enemy chaff retreats. Nubs like the latter have little more power than an AMT chaff-killer, possibly ending up worse overall from a) not being able to fire the first round and b) shields on the chaff. If you're wondering why I'm denigrating low-defense beamers while advocating an AMT design with no defenses, it's because enemy missile ships with orders to disengage will have effectively "unchaffed" the beamers, since they move forward, while the range-6 AMTs will still be well protected by their chaff.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: AMT question |
Sun, 01 June 2008 19:00 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
That 2 Omega design is not made up for this comparison, it's a design I used in a game (that I won). Gatability and defense were key factors in it's design, the beamer ships had the exact same defense, and therefore acted as expensive chaff after the real chaff died, which was a big factor in at least one battle.
You are right, that 5 Omega is more powerful per iron then my 2 Omega version. Almost 5 (316*15/968) vs just over 4. The AMT is almost 7...
If you're figuring power per iron, AMTs are better then Omegas. Per resource, AMTs are much more expensive. Per germ (often a real consideration) AMTs are more expensive. Per point of defense, AMTs win because you need 2 to 4 times as many ships.
Also, in my comparison, the Omega ships (either design) will have higher init then the AMT ships unless the AMTs go to Nexi (further increasing the Germ cost). AMTs really only make sense if iron is your limiting factor, and therefore probably only applies to -f's that arn't IT, IS, or AR (IT can gate so gatable isn't an advantage, IS pay more for weapons AMTs need lots of weapons, late game AR isn't mineral limited, factoried races will not have the huge germ stockpiles required). And -f races really shouldn't have a contested late game...
There was one team game I was in that we'd decided to start using AMT nubians. However, the game ended before they got to the front line in any serious numbers.
So, in some rare circumstances they may be useful for something other then bio scrappers.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| Re: chaff question |
Mon, 02 June 2008 09:01 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 01 June 2008 04:31 |
chaff...
unless it's a shielded frigate
|
Ummm, the whole point of chaff is it is more attractive to missiles than warships. Shielding the FF chaff beats that purpose, because then its attractivenes goes WAAAAAY below even jammed warships.
For killing chaff one usually uses a BB with 20 MegaD guns and 6 comp's (depending on init of opponents maybe 3 cap's 3 comp's). One of such BBs kills ~170 scout-chaff / ~70 FF-chaff with its first shot, then it dies. If it is late game, then one can use nub hull for that, with more comp's, maybe (if pressed with free design slots) even a combo Sappers / MegaDs. Still that nub dies in first round.
With such a poor kill ratio your AMT chaff-killer simply can't compare even to "oldfashioned" BB design. Besides, in "normal" games I see only the TT CA able to field the AMT. Nowadays TT CA is a very rare bird. 
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: chaff question |
Mon, 02 June 2008 20:17 |
|
|
|
| iztok wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 09:01 |
Hi!
For killing chaff one usually uses a BB with 20 MegaD guns and 6 comp's (depending on init of opponents maybe 3 cap's 3 comp's). One of such BBs kills ~170 scout-chaff / ~70 FF-chaff with its first shot, then it dies. If it is late game, then one can use nub hull for that, with more comp's, maybe (if pressed with free design slots) even a combo Sappers / MegaDs. Still that nub dies in first round.
|
Exactly!!
An AMP kills one chaff (maybe less)
A Mega Disruptor has a power of 169. At range 3, it is 90%, so power 152.
It kills 6 scout chaff, or about 3.5 frigate chaff. and if you figure in hull costs, it gets even more effective to go with beamers.
To have an effective chaff killer, one must
1. Have range 3 beamer
2. have movement 2.25 or higher (move 3 on first turn)
3. have initiate higher than your missle ships
*All* 3 of these are required.
This combo kills chaff *every* time if chaff advances (unless the ships are killed first by even higher initiative chaff-chaff killers, usually BMCs)
As you mentioned, there is a problem with retreating missle ships with or without chaff. The solution to these is *fast* chaff, either shielded or not, plus beamer chaff killers. IMHO, fast chaff+beamers would be way cheaper than AMTs as chaff killers. (late game an DLL7 is quite cheap. The chaff only needs to move 2 first turn to be in range of range 6 retreating missles). There are lots of threads on chaff design, and keeping chaff more attractive than mainline ships.
Also as previously mentioned, AMTs do have a place as mainline ships, late game if iron is limiting.
naz
[Updated on: Mon, 02 June 2008 20:20] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: chaff question |
Mon, 02 June 2008 21:27 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| bigcanuknaz wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 20:17 |
1. Have range 3 beamer
2. have movement 2.25 or higher (move 3 on first turn)
3. have initiate higher than your missle ships
|
It is possible to make chaff not move at all (well I think they disengage after 8 rounds, but that's not an issue). This means that beamers can't shoot them on round 1. This makes chaff killers largely useless, unless they can get move + range of 7 or more. Or you can adjust the battle board positions to your favor.
Against retreat firing missile ships, this will cause additional losses on the second round of missiles (assuming they're using range 6 missiles, range 5 you'll get hit twice in either case).
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Apr 28 09:22:45 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
).
