Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Nubian vs Cruiser
| Nubian vs Cruiser |
Wed, 23 April 2003 13:38  |
|
|
|
Ok so I'm guessing you all came here think "Nubian... everytime!!!"
My question not as stupid as that!!!
End game torpedo/missile ship design...
Do you go for:
large numbers of cruisers with Omega's (against jammer 50's you still get 60% accuracy with 2 Nexi)?
Large numbers of cruisers with Armaggedons (against jammer 50's you get 23% accuracy with 2 nexi)?
Either of the above with 4 nexi?
Or a nubian of X design?
If you say the nubian then specify what design and why.
Oh... there is one last thing... all the designs must be gateable!!! - preferably under 300kt but there is some room over this amount... if you don't mind your ships damaged!!!
Personally...
I like 4 omegas and 2 arms with 2 nexi. The reason being that you still get high accuracy and you still have the double damage option with those arms. The added bonus is that the Omegas fire first which increases your chance of getting enemy sheilds down.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Wed, 23 April 2003 16:24  |
|
|
|
| freakyboy wrote on Wed, 23 April 2003 13:38 |
Ok so I'm guessing you all came here think "Nubian... everytime!!!"
My question not as stupid as that!!!
End game torpedo/missile ship design...
[snip]
If you say the nubian then specify what design and why.
Oh... there is one last thing... all the designs must be gateable!!! - preferably under 300kt but there is some room over this amount... if you don't mind your ships damaged!!!
Personally...
I like 4 omegas and 2 arms with 2 nexi. The reason being that you still get high accuracy and you still have the double damage option with those arms. The added bonus is that the Omegas fire first which increases your chance of getting enemy sheilds down.
|
The Nubian.
Experience has shown me that missile CCs get eaten like popcorn in end-game battles. Not enough slots for a balanced offense/defense. And just too little armor.
Since you wanted designs, I'll toss out a few - the gatability limit is an interesting handicap, but I've built something similar before...
Designs (using max tech)
[Edit: Oops. Did this with an RS LRT race - revising shields]
CC
P16 ram, 2 Nexi, 4 Omega, 2 ARM, 2 CPS
319 I, 100 B, 155 G 205 res (261kt)
Fuel 600, Cloak 0%, Jam 0%
Armor 700, Shield 1000 (1400 RS LRT)
Init 11, Move 1.75
========
Nubian
P16 ram, 6 Nexi, 6 Omega, 6 CPS, 6 J30, 12 BD
462 I, 123 B, 366 G 558 res (313kt)
Fuel 5000, Cloak 0%, Jam 88%
Armor 5000, Shield 3000 (4200 RS LRT)
Init 20, Move 1.75
Notes:
1. Lighter engine (TS-10) would drop Nube weight appreciably - that would open up other options
2. Nube essentially has 4 3xGP slots free for optional load-outs; such as OT/jet for higher speed, cloaks, etc. Plus the computer/jamming/shield numbers can be played with as well for counter-design games. This will affect costs as well.
3. BD loadout in sample above makes the craft much more survivable when/if a beamer stack gets into range.
4. The above design is *not* a specialized counter to the CC - if it was than some costs could be trimmed, especially Germ.
-=-=-=-=-
Cost comparisons:
Iron: Nubian more expensive. About 1.5 to 1 (3 CCs for 2 Nubes)
Bora: Nubian more expensive. About 1.25 to 1 (5 CC to 4 Nubes)
Germ: Nubian more expensive. About 2.33 to 1 (7 CC to 3 Nubes)
Res: Nubian more expensive. About 2.75 to 1 (11 CC to 4 Nubes)
System comparisons:
Firepower: About equal. 6 Omega (3x2) vs 4 Omega (2x2) and 2 ARM (2x1)
Jamming: Nubian advantage. 88% jamming to 0% jamming
Initiative: Nubian advantage. 20 to 11.
Armor: Nubian advantage. 5000 to 700, about 7:1.
Shielding: Nubian advantage 3000 to 1000, about 3:1.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Combat example?
Let's assume Resource limited (worse case for Nubian)
We'll also assume they close to sufficient range in Round 1.
11 CCs vs. 4 Nubes
11 CC stack
Costs: 3509 Iron, 1100 Bora, 1705 Germ, 2255 res
DP: 7700 armor (11x700); 11000 shields
Firepower: 22 Omega, 22 Omega, 22 ARM (stack shots)
Comp: 2xNexi vs 6 J30; (Omega: 69.4% hit, ARM 26% hit)
4 Nubian stack
Costs: 1848 Iron, 492 Bora, 1464 Germ, 2232 res
DP: 20000 armor (4x5000); 12000 shields
Firepower: 12 Omega, 12 Omega (stack shots)
Comp: 6xNexi vs nothing; (99.7% hit)
Round 1:
Nubians fire first - two salvos of 12 Omega each. All hit. 12x316=3792 damage per salvo. 1896 to shields/1896 to armor...
a. 1st salvo: CC shields down to 9104; 2 CCs die... 55dp to 9 others. Shields down to 9000 (9 full CC shields)
b. 2nd salvo: CC shields down to 7104; 2 CCs die... 86dp to 7 others. 7 left with 559 armor. Shields down to 7000 (7 full shields).
CCs fire second - salvos of 14 Omega, 14 Omega, 12 ARM
a. 1st salvo: 14*0.694=9.71 (10 hits). Misses will do 40 shield damage each. 3160 damage + 160 shield. 1580+160 = 1596 shield damage and 395dp damage to each Nubian. Nubians at 4605dp, shield stack at 10404.
b. 2nd salvo. Same damage. Nubians at 4210 dp, shields at 8808.
c. 3rd salvo (ARMS). 14*0.26=3.64 (4 hits). Misses will do 66 shield damage each. 2100 damage + 660 shield. 1710 shield
...
[Updated on: Wed, 23 April 2003 16:58]
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Wed, 23 April 2003 17:24 |
|
|
|
ship to ship the nubian wins - that much was pretty much always going to be true.
However...
In the example of nubians vs cruisers as you stated above...
4 nubs = 24 missiles.
11 cruisers = 66 missiles.
Therefore when you chuck chaff into the battle (which there almost certainly will be) - does the tide not turn in favour of the cruisers superior numbers??
Suggestion: add into the battle some basic 9x jammer 30, 3x engine, 9x AMP, 3x Sapper, 9x sheild, 3x capacitor, 3x manovering jet nubains and some standard x-ray laser chaff - both in equal numbers for each side. See how the battle alters??
Comparing ship to ship like this will not give a true result.
Reason for the 300kt (ish) weight limit was because in the whopping total of 4 games in which i've reached the end game scenario with a race capable of putting up a fight... I've discovered non-gateable missile ships are a MAJOR pain in the behind. I like to be IT or to only use gateable ships (BB era causes lots of hassle!!!! Often I'm forced to scrap this ethos) because it makes defense a damned sight easier as well as re-enforcing front lines!!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Wed, 23 April 2003 18:43 |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Wed, 23 April 2003 23:24 |
ship to ship the nubian wins - that much was pretty much always going to be true.
However...
In the example of nubians vs cruisers as you stated above...
4 nubs = 24 missiles.
11 cruisers = 66 missiles.
Therefore when you chuck chaff into the battle (which there almost certainly will be) - does the tide not turn in favour of the cruisers superior numbers??
|
You mean that the CCs will eat through the chaff escorting the nubs almost three times as fast? Bring chaff killers.
| Quote: |
Suggestion: add into the battle some basic 9x jammer 30, 3x engine, 9x AMP, 3x Sapper, 9x sheild, 3x capacitor, 3x manovering jet nubains and some standard x-ray laser chaff - both in equal numbers for each side. See how the battle alters??
|
Hehe, "basic"? That's more like 3x jammer 30, 3x engine, 6x AMP, 6x shields, 9x eny caps, 3x jet, 9x beam deflectors. 
Or another vanilla mix ... 
| Quote: |
Reason for the 300kt (ish) weight limit was because in the whopping total of 4 games in which i've reached the end game scenario with a race capable of putting up a fight... I've discovered non-gateable missile ships are a MAJOR pain in the behind. I like to be IT or to only use gateable ships (BB era causes lots of hassle!!!! Often I'm forced to scrap this ethos) because it makes defense a damned sight easier as well as re-enforcing front lines!!
|
I'm completely with you in that!! I will keep all my ships (utility/bomb/warship/...) within or close to the 300kT range.
Non-gate-able missile ships suck big time! That's why in the last 3-4 solo games (won them all ) didn't build up a missile force (or didn't use them) but went beamers all the way (BBs to nubs), very mobile force, combined in one year.
Defense? Defense?! Offense of course!
regards,
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Thu, 24 April 2003 02:52 |
|
|
|
I (now) always have defensive ships in reserve. I discovered in a couple of games that when you start launching large numbers of fleets at neighbour number 1... neighbour number 2 likes to send some ships at you!!
Hence during the BB Missile era I have a nasty tendancy to sit back on my gains and rush for nubians
Back to the cruiser/nubian thing...
Cruisers will not only rip apart chaff quicker (which is fairly unimportant when you use beamers in your fleet) but they might be able to rip through the beamers the enemy has quicker.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Thu, 24 April 2003 03:02 |
|
|
|
One other thing that has just struck me about your nubian design...
If you have RS for your race then your sheild total is 4200 - so you can take upto 420 dp to your sheilds each turn and not lose any sheilding. Combine that with all those deflectors and the result is really good!!!
You've reached a situation where in a 1:1 ship battle between your nubs and X design beamer of your enemy and they need to cause MORE THAN 1400 dp of damage with beamers per shot to even damage your nubians. With your range advantage it makes such a battle much harder on their ships.
Vs armageddons, max accuracy is 38% against your nub.
Vs Omegas, max accuracy is 82% against your nub.
Overall... great design, if it wasn't for the weak firepower. But there's bugger all you could do about that - the weight limit is a major problem.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Thu, 24 April 2003 07:15 |
|
|
|
| freakyboy wrote on Thu, 24 April 2003 03:02 |
One other thing that has just struck me about your nubian design...
If you have RS for your race then your sheild total is 4200 - so you can take upto 420 dp to your sheilds each turn and not lose any sheilding. Combine that with all those deflectors and the result is really good!!!
You've reached a situation where in a 1:1 ship battle between your nubs and X design beamer of your enemy and they need to cause MORE THAN 1400 dp of damage with beamers per shot to even damage your nubians. With your range advantage it makes such a battle much harder on their ships.
Vs armageddons, max accuracy is 38% against your nub.
Vs Omegas, max accuracy is 82% against your nub.
Overall... great design, if it wasn't for the weak firepower. But there's bugger all you could do about that - the weight limit is a major problem.
|
My actual design fielded in a game had a lighter engine (TS-10), one less set of BDs, and a set of MFP (MT part) to give it speed 2.5. Massed 310kt - which means it gated "clean".
I then at one point engaged an enemy fleet consisting solely of AMP beamers and chaff. I used the famed "retreat firing" tactic over a few turns of a running fight. He never laid a glove on me and I shot up the chaff the first turn, and started attritioning the beamers the rest of the time.
The firepower for the hull is the weakpoint - you make up for this by using these in *large* stacks if at all possible.
I generally refer to this class as "light" torp Nubes. I also saw a 300kt ARM nube once - had one slot of ARMS and a monster load of comps/jamming/etc... Gatable, but even less firepower.
Adding chaff in is a temporary thing. If chaff is there, you have to assume beamers are there as well. The chaff will be gone generally by the end of Round 2 (if not sooner). At that point the beamers will be shooting at the Nubes/CCs as well - though I'd guess you'd prefer the beamers to shoot at each other at this point. And giving attractiveness I guess the missile ships won't shoot at each other until they're done shooting up the beamers. Oh wait, the CCs are probably more attractive than the Nubians (beamer or missile) - thus once the chaff dies they become the target of choice. [Not being flippant, I saw that happen in large battles at least twice.]
The CC, carrying more missiles, will eat through the chaff sooner. However, making that a major criteria, the Iron cost should be more of a factor. And that's a 3:2 ratio, not the 11:4 ratio using resources, which makes the exchange a bit narrower. And, if you want light chaff killing, then you'll see high initiative beamers, and the oddball (hi Xdude) AMT-Nubian.
[Hmm, anyone have the numbers on a <= 300kt AMT Nubian?] Probably cheap in minerals, but resource expensive...
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Thu, 24 April 2003 18:11 |
|
|
|
OK...
AMT nubian (stereo typical design)...
3x engine (p16 one in this case)
6x CPS
9x Jammer 30
3x Nexi
18x AMT
I: 189kt
B: 123kt
G: 234kt
Resources: 1149
Weight: 295kt (gateable!!!)
This puppy is 95% jammed and 75% accurate (at least) against 9 jammer 30's, 73% accurate against 9 jammer 50's (not that anyone would use 9 of them!!). It takes out 18 chaff per ship, which is much better than the CC or Omega nub.
Max damage is 1080 per ship... 810 if 75% of missiles hit.
That's alot less than the CC's or Omega nubs.
You need FAR TOO many of these to take down an omega nub.
The AMT is a fantastic item if you're short on minerals. Otherwise it's useless - except as maybe anti-chaff chaff, but i personally think it's too expensive resource wise for that - others may disagree.
One other problem the AMT has... 0 initiative. Which means chances are omega nubs, arm nubs or even CC missile ships will fire first. Since you do less damage per shot and fire second... it's not much cop really.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Fri, 25 April 2003 13:15 |
|
|
|
Depending on the number of Computers depends on whether the sappers or Arms fire first. Not many people put computers on Sapper ships, but they put lots of Armageddon ships.
However... I am very impressed at someone finding out something I posted in another thread... the use of sappers ignoring chaff to alter the balance of a battle!!!
Ron: if anyone other than Robert posts this in the appropriate thread then don't give them any points!! lol.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Fri, 25 April 2003 16:43 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Fri, 25 April 2003 19:15 |
Depending on the number of Computers depends on whether the sappers or Arms fire first. Not many people put computers on Sapper ships, but they put lots of Armageddon ships.
|
Someone who is actually using a dedicated sapper design will put enough computers in the sapper to fire before his missiles. A sapper like that with lower ini has no use at all, so why build it?
| Quote: |
However... I am very impressed at someone finding out something I posted in another thread... the use of sappers ignoring chaff to alter the balance of a battle!!!
|
Well, your idea of sapping the shields was good (similar to frying the chaff before missiles shoot), but the high defense design you proposed (with the idea of it living longer because of that) was not.
Like I said in that thread, go all offense instead and only if you can get to the smaller missile stack of which you can compeletely strip the shields, don't bother with trying to bring the shield stack of the main RS beamer nub fleet from 420k shielding to 400k shielding ... that's no use and to sap more (significant) shields you need more sapper ships that once shields are gone sit there doing nothing, a waste of minerals and resources ...
regards,
mch
[Updated on: Fri, 25 April 2003 16:44] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nubian vs Cruiser |
Fri, 25 April 2003 18:13 |
|
|
|
Hence the downside of sappers.
It's a damned shame that sappers are useless when sheilds are down.
Maybe someone with more experience of modding stars could maybe find a way to alter sapper behaviour to be similar to capitol missiles (normal damage when sheilds are UP, 1/8th damage when sheilds are gone??)
Just an idea...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 07:28:04 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
