Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Thoughts on weapon balance
Thoughts on weapon balance Fri, 12 February 2016 21:24 Go to next message
Question is currently offline Question

 
Petty Officer 3rd Class

Messages: 48
Registered: February 2007
Forum ate my post and didnt auto-save anything so this is a short version.

Beams : (not sappers, regular beams) seem pretty underpowered. Gatling ones have an obvious use, but the regular ones are too short ranged one and simply cannot outdps regular torps, let alone missiles at higher tech levels. The range is a huge problem because there is no way to make a tanky, close ranged fighter, since jammers are not equal to computers and there is a limit to how many jammers you can stack. Going from 3 to 6 jammer-50s does pretty much nothing except waste slots for example.

Torps : They get out-dpsed by missiles in almost all situations, even when firing at shielded targets with jammers. They dont have any clear role when missiles are basically far superior. The fact that torps and missiles do 50% damage through shields is a huge balance problem because it means that using smaller ships (like DEs) is pointless because torps will wipe them out through shields, which forces you to spam battleships and nubians instead (since they have the hull armor to tank the shield penetrating damage).

Missiles : Extremely OP, its supposed to be an anti-armor weapon (which is necessary when armor is roughly 3x as effective as shields for some reason), but it does 50% penetrating damage AND is highly effective against shields as well. And since their base damage is so high, they still outdps torps even with their deceptively low accuracy (which gets huge boosts from computers, while torps get much lower bonuses).3x jammer-30s vs 3x omega torps give the torps an accuracy of 84%, which is very poor compared to armageddons going from 30-45% accuracy in the same situation.

Because missiles are so OP, it forces people to use stuff like chaff which doesnt make sense (there is a reason why nobody uses ships as "chaff" in real life). Meanwhile you cant use a setup where you have tough ships with jammers distract enemy missile boats while lightly armored ships in the rear fire missiles, because the targetting will ignore the closer ships. So fleet building strategies degenerate into mostly missile boats with chaff vs missile boats with chaff and mixing in some gatlings/sappers in between.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Sat, 13 February 2016 01:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Yeah, some of these things are true. But have you tested all of them in battle? Dueling


So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Sat, 13 February 2016 11:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1068
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
[sharkish grin]
You should play a game vs humans.
And see wether you keep up your analysis that beamer ships aren't worth building.

With good standard designs, resource for resource, torp ships haven't got a chance against beamer ships (which will be even cheaper in minerals, use less fuel and can be gated).
Thus I guess the problem is rather the design you had in mind for torp or beamer ships.

Missiles are an important weapon but they are toast if completly on their own. And they cost too much ironium.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Sun, 14 February 2016 09:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Question is currently offline Question

 
Petty Officer 3rd Class

Messages: 48
Registered: February 2007
Unless im missing something, range 3 beams seem to cost significantly more resources than torps of the same level. And if you have enough miners or planets you shouldnt be running into a mineral shortage anyway.

If we look at armageddons vs AM pulverizers, the armageddons can get off two salvos before the AM pulverizers can even enter firing range and the beams take a damage penalty for distancea s well. Since jammers are significantly weaker compared to computers, you can never put enough jammers on a ship to jam enough of the incoming missiles. Deflectors vs capacitors is a much more balanced comparison. And if you are going to use beams to try and tank enemy fire (Which doesnt really work against missiles, since the missiles will see a heavily defended target with jammers and go after YOUR missiles instead), you would be better off using sappers so that your missiles can do double damage faster. Sappers + Missiles are a much better alternative to trying to use beams unless you are very short on minerals.

Im not sure how damage is applied through the shields though, for example if i do 1k damage to shields and 1k to armor, does all of the 1k armor damage apply to a single ship or is it spread out over all ships in the token?


[Updated on: Sun, 14 February 2016 09:06]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Sun, 14 February 2016 09:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Question is currently offline Question

 
Petty Officer 3rd Class

Messages: 48
Registered: February 2007
Also is this the way gatling beams work :

E.G. You have a big mutha canon (204 damage, range 2) firing at a token with 10 enemy ships. Do they each take 204 damage, so 2,040 damage in total? Unless im missing something, the gatling beams will massively outdamage all other beams unless you are firing at a single target (like a starbase) or very small tokens.

E.G. Lets say you have a cruiser with 6x big mutha canons firing at 10 enemy ships. That is 1,224 damage to each ship for a total of 10,224 damage, whereas a ship with 6x AM pulverizers would do 2,598 damage. The cruiser with 6x big mutha canons would be far more effective at bringing down the shield stack, even more than a ship armed with syncro sappers (which would do 3,246 damage vs shields only).

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Sun, 14 February 2016 18:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Question wrote on Sun, 14 February 2016 15:48
E.G. You have a big mutha canon (204 damage, range 2) firing at a token with 10 enemy ships. Do they each take 204 damage, so 2,040 damage in total?

Damage is dealt/received by token. Even so, gatlings can be devastating against certain fleets. Shocked



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Sun, 14 February 2016 18:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Question wrote on Sun, 14 February 2016 15:05
Unless im missing something, range 3 beams seem to cost significantly more resources than torps of the same level. And if you have enough miners or planets you shouldnt be running into a mineral shortage anyway.

Oh, but you eventually will, by the time techs are high and your shipbuilding is maximum. Twisted Evil


Quote:
If we look at armageddons vs AM pulverizers, the armageddons can get off two salvos before the AM pulverizers can even enter firing range and the beams take a damage penalty for distancea s well.

Yup. Then the beams get in range and all the missiles die. End of battle. Dueling


Quote:
jammers are significantly weaker compared to computers, you can never put enough jammers on a ship to jam enough of the incoming missiles.

You most definitely can, particularly if not dealing with the more accurate Torpedoes. 2 Guns


Quote:
Deflectors vs capacitors is a much more balanced comparison.

Capacitors don't compound as nicely as Deflectors. Wink


Quote:
And if you are going to use beams to try and tank enemy fire

There's designs that can do that, more or less. Whip


Quote:
(Which doesnt really work against missiles,

Most people use chaff. It's a kinda rock-paper-scissors balance. Cool


Quote:
since the missiles will see a heavily defended target with jammers and go after YOUR missiles instead)

Yup. And will most likely die when the beams get in range. Shocked


Quote:
you would be better off using sappers so that your missiles can do double damage faster.

Indeed, though many players seem to neglect sappers. Confused


Quote:
Sappers + Missiles are a much better alternative to trying to use beams unless you are very short on minerals.

Add beams and chaff and you got a really great fleet mix. Very Happy


Quote:
for example if i do 1k damage to shields and 1k to armor, does all of the 1k armor damage apply to a single ship or is it spread out over all ships in the token?

Spread out, but only one ship can die per missile received.



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Mon, 15 February 2016 07:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
Gatlings hit each token, which mean they can be powerful against either multiple enemies or a mixed fleet.
They are relatively weak against a single ship type fleet, but there will be other counters to those anyway.

The Beams/Sappers/Missiles/Torps/Chaff system has proven relatively well balanced.

Everything needs some Iron - Missiles need lots of it, and plenty of Germ (which you've used up building factories)
Beams need boranium, as do bombs
Sappers need germanium - which you've used up building factories and missiles ships (computers)
Torps need iron but can get away with a bit less germ

Of course everything needs economic resources as well....

Deflectors outweigh capacitors (because they stack further), and with regen shields you can have large beamer stacks just fire at each other and do no damage at all...
Missiles come in and do nasty damage, even through shields - but Jamming does reduce their effect considerably, and they are very expensive to lose (in Iron, Germ and resource) particularly as the 'enemy' will likely be able to scoop up those minerals and run away with them (in order to build more ships).}
In the late game minerals are a scarce resource - you've depleted minerals from all the planets other than that one that just got hit by a comet, and the HW's. Unless you have an AR mining all the HW then you are really struggling, and are running an alchemy programme.

So you can't afford to build/replace missile ships...

A mixed battle fleet is important - which brings gatlings into play again...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Mon, 15 February 2016 20:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Also, don't forget there's competition. You'll usually need to build ships yesterday, which usually means cheap and gateable. Whip


So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Wed, 17 February 2016 13:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Question wrote on Sun, 14 February 2016 15:05
... And if you have enough miners or planets you shouldnt be running into a mineral shortage anyway.

ROFLMAO
You really need to play vs. live players. The catch of this game is you practically NEVER have enough of anything (but enemies Wink ). About he only time you have enough of something is when you've allready won the game. The rest is never-ending compromising.

BR, Iztok


[Updated on: Wed, 17 February 2016 14:06]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Thu, 18 February 2016 20:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Question wrote on Sun, 14 February 2016 15:05
if you have enough miners or planets you shouldnt be running into a mineral shortage anyway.

You aren't playing with the "Beginner: Maximum Minerals" option, are you? Rolling Eyes



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Thu, 09 June 2016 20:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Question wrote on Sat, 13 February 2016 13:24
Forum ate my post and didnt auto-save anything so this is a short version.

Beams : (not sappers, regular beams) seem pretty underpowered. Gatling ones have an obvious use, but the regular ones are too short ranged one and simply cannot outdps regular torps, let alone missiles at higher tech levels. The range is a huge problem because there is no way to make a tanky, close ranged fighter, since jammers are not equal to computers and there is a limit to how many jammers you can stack. Going from 3 to 6 jammer-50s does pretty much nothing except waste slots for example.

Torps : They get out-dpsed by missiles in almost all situations, even when firing at shielded targets with jammers. They dont have any clear role when missiles are basically far superior. The fact that torps and missiles do 50% damage through shields is a huge balance problem because it means that using smaller ships (like DEs) is pointless because torps will wipe them out through shields, which forces you to spam battleships and nubians instead (since they have the hull armor to tank the shield penetrating damage).

Missiles : Extremely OP, its supposed to be an anti-armor weapon (which is necessary when armor is roughly 3x as effective as shields for some reason), but it does 50% penetrating damage AND is highly effective against shields as well. And since their base damage is so high, they still outdps torps even with their deceptively low accuracy (which gets huge boosts from computers, while torps get much lower bonuses).3x jammer-30s vs 3x omega torps give the torps an accuracy of 84%, which is very poor compared to armageddons going from 30-45% accuracy in the same situation.

Because missiles are so OP, it forces people to use stuff like chaff which doesnt make sense (there is a reason why nobody uses ships as "chaff" in real life). Meanwhile you cant use a setup where you have tough ships with jammers distract enemy missile boats while lightly armored ships in the rear fire missiles, because the targetting will ignore the closer ships. So fleet building strategies degenerate into mostly missile boats with chaff vs missile boats with chaff and mixing in some gatlings/sappers in between.


Beams are good because:
- they're light
- they're cheap in Ironium
- they sweep mines
- the "one torpedo-one kill" rule doesn't apply

Being light is good for several reasons. First, weight decreases speed on the battleboard (at 70kT per engine, you slow down 1/4, at 140kT per engine you slow down 1/2, etc.). Second, fuel use is proportional to weight, making it rather logistically difficult to move large missile fleets around (your average missile battleship weighs about 1300kT, while a beam battleship weighs between about 380-560kT, but they have the same amount of fuel). Third, many players use Improved Starbases, and the Space Dock cannot build ships heavier than 200kT. Fourth, stargates are key to tactical mobility, and they have mass limits (unless you're Interstellar Traveller).

Being cheap in Ironium is good because minerals run dry in long games (because mineral concentrations decrease by 1 for every 125kT mined; even with Beginner: Max Minerals turned on, each planet only has ~12500 kT of each mineral to mine) and the limiting one is usually Ironium because all ships cost large amounts of it. Beam ships cost similar amounts of Ironium, Boranium and Germanium, while missile ships cost a huge amount of Ironium, quite a bit of Germanium and relatively little Boranium. In the endgame when Nubians come out, Omega Torpedo Nubians are indeed superior to Anti-Matter Pulverizer Nubians ship for ship at killing opposing Nubians... but an Omega Torpedo Nubian costs five times as much Ironium as an Anti-Matter Pulverizer Nubian, and when you're reduced to mineral alchemy (costs 100 resources, gives 1kT of each mineral), it's simply not cost-effective.

Being unable to sweep mines adds another requirement for support to missile ships. Combined with their lesser mobility (not fitt
...



[Updated on: Fri, 10 June 2016 23:46]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Tue, 21 June 2016 09:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nmid

 
Commander

Messages: 1608
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

If you are still around, I would love to play a 2 player game with you.. or a 2 team player game against 8 AI.

It would remove some of the rust I've accumulated over the past year or so Rolling Eyes .



I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Tue, 06 December 2016 10:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
skoormit is currently offline skoormit

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama
magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 09 June 2016 19:35
...Speaking of chaff, it was an intended mechanic and is not as unrealistic as you think.


The OP was specifically referring to using actual ships as chaff. Which I agree is rather unrealistic.

Then again, space military realism was not a primary goal of the game's design.



What we need's a few good taters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Tue, 06 December 2016 21:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
skoormit wrote on Wed, 07 December 2016 02:32
magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 09 June 2016 19:35
...Speaking of chaff, it was an intended mechanic and is not as unrealistic as you think.


The OP was specifically referring to using actual ships as chaff. Which I agree is rather unrealistic.

Then again, space military realism was not a primary goal of the game's design.

Does it really matter if they technically count as "separate ships" or not? Practically, they act like whipple shields or reactive armour.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Fri, 09 December 2016 12:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
Although lots of the modern anti missile tech is basically launching a smaller missile to hit it head on - so that's an engine and a hull... Oh and targeting (which is what the laser does on the chaff in Stars)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Wed, 25 July 2018 03:01 Go to previous message
talkingbologna is currently offline talkingbologna

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 86
Registered: November 2016
Location: 1947
Could well be that thousands of small, pilotless drones with weapons could be used for many purposes in combat and out, including taking fire for a larger, piloted ship.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Ally's Turn File
Next Topic: Chance to hit (Heavy) minefields much lower than documented?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Apr 18 22:51:33 EDT 2024