Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Late game chaff
| Late game chaff |
Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48  |
|
 Robert |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
Ok, some question about late game (not end game) ships.
Imagine you got plenty of resources, lots of minerals, but it is forseeable you run into a serious germanium crunch the next 10 turns or so. Tech is nearly maxed out (w26, c26, en22, prop16, el22), ramscoops and regenerating shields.
I have some thoughts here and there and would like to share them, curious for comments.
Bombers first:
IMO mini bombers with mizer are most efficient. cost 2 germanium,
can be built en masse. When calculation costs/bomb also better in resources and when considering snipers (missles) also more efficient than jammed/shielded B52... correct???
AMP-Nubs:
What is the best trade-off between beams and caps? Caps still cost 3g, while beams cost no g. I am currently using 9 caps and 6 amps, cause as IS beams are more expensive. but 12 amps and 3 caps should do the same damage, or a bit more, take same number of slots, less g, more b... suggestions? (remember: IS)
What else... ok, I got RS, but the shields are bloody expensive in g. I thought about replacing one with deflectors, giving some more help against beams, and with the jammer 50 i dont care too much about other's missles... comments???
ARM/Omega Nubs:
My Calculations show that ARMS are, based on a per missle calculation more efficient than omegas. If the enemy has only 3 jammer 30s, they do effectively more damage than omegas (1/8 goes to shields!), and if one puts 6 jammers to his nubs, fine -
then he has some other disadvantages.
And once shields are down, ARMS are even better.
More important: the range advantage. For now I assume people are using 4 stacks of omegas or 3 stacks of arms. This means ARMNubs are not that heavy and will move last. This can be nice counter to any/any/disengage moving Omega Nubs! Also Starbases are much less jammed than ships, making ARMs again better than Omegas.
And for snipering bombers, remote miners (there is an AR in the game) and freighters ARMS are much better cause most of the targets are umjammed/unshielded.
Now what concerns me:
I did not talk about the costs - and i mean germanium.
Using many cheap computers give same accuracy than one slot of expensive nexi. And with heavy ARMs i got one more slot anyway.
Also I plan not to use and deflectors, so even more spare slots... anyone experience with that???
And one last thing: CHAFF
one chaff costs 2g right now. There are not many missleboats out there any more, so this might not be that important. Still I wonder if using the mizer reduces the cost to 1g. Simple...
But what about DD chaff? costs the same g, and is more resistant to beamers. One could add a single cheap shield, so Omegas need 2 hits to kill it (means cost per enemy missle is 1g again), or even more: CCs cost 3g, the mizer no g, and I could add some range2 beams, so they get another shot at his Nubs cause of higher init. Takes 3 shots to be killed with shields, and I could add a jet so they move 1.25 and protect my Nubs against enemy any/any/disengage missles...
This sounds all very strange, and I am sure many thoughts have been put into this, and nobody does it, so it must be crap.
Still I would like to hear what you experienced...
Ok, lots of things... curious for comments
Thanks
Robert
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Wed, 05 November 2003 10:57  |
|
| LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
Ok, some question about late game (not end game) ships.
Imagine you got plenty of resources, lots of minerals, but it is forseeable you run into a serious germanium crunch the next 10 turns or so. Tech is nearly maxed out (w26, c26, en22, prop16, el22), ramscoops and regenerating shields.
|
This is generaly considered end game.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
Bombers first:
|
Hard to go wrong with mini's, gatable, and takes a lot of missiles to kill (1 missile per ship, but you've got a lot of ships).
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
AMP-Nubs:
|
Caps are cheap in resources, and even if you have a lot of B, you don't have a limitless supply of it, I'd still argue for using caps.
Standard AMP nubian is: 2 AMP, 3 Cap, 1-2 Shield, 1-2 Jammer, 0-1 jets, rest BDs. In your case you only need 1 jammer. I like 2 shields when I have RS. The problem is that this design is faily expensive in G. Try 2AMP, 3Cap, 1CPS, 1J50, jets, 4 BDs, it's still fairly expensive in G, but if you get a cheaper version that dies faster, that's really more expensive.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
ARM/Omega Nubs:
|
One benifit of Omegas for you is that Omegas don't need as much computing power. You give up first shot, but that might be acceptable. If the enemy jams, Omegas start to even out. Also ARMs don't tend to kill more miners/bombers/freighters then Omegas, remember 1 missile per ship at least. Most of those will die to an Omega.
A missile ship without defectors will die very fast if the enemy beamers get in range, that is probably a bad idea.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
And one last thing: CHAFF
|
If you build a lot of missile/torp ships, Iron will soon be a problem too, FM chaff is Iron expensive, so it might be a problem. However it's fairly easy to switch chaff designs.
Also if you're facing an AR, it's likely you'll see a lot of missile ships, they have the iron for them after all.
If you make a DD with a shield, chances are the enemy missiles will prefer your bigger ships instead...
Also it might take 2 Omegas to kill a DD for a while, but pretty soon the damage will add up and/or the shields will drop, and then it's back to one.
DDs also cost a lot of iron and resources. You can build a FF chaff for 5 resources, a DD (without a shield) costs 6 2 1 13, you'll pay about 3 times the iron and resources for your chaff, which is generally a very bad idea.
I think if you worry about G and ignore the other costs, you'll start having an Iron or Boranium crunch before too long. Also you might have enough resources, but if you start spending 2x the resources, that is similar to cutting your econ in half.
One thing you could try to do is get prop to 20 or 23, the prop 16 ram is fairly G expensive.
[edit - removed some white space]
[Updated on: Wed, 05 November 2003 11:00]
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Wed, 05 November 2003 12:46 |
|
|
|
I'm in general agreement with most of Leit's comments, but wanted to toss in a few additional remarks.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
Ok, some question about late game (not end game) ships.
Imagine you got plenty of resources, lots of minerals, but it is forseeable you run into a serious germanium crunch the next 10 turns or so. Tech is nearly maxed out (w26, c26, en22, prop16, el22), ramscoops and regenerating shields.
|
This is basically "end-game tech". Barring an engine with higher Prop tech all you're getting from here on out is miniturization of costs.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
Bombers first:
|
Minis vs B-52 subject to discussion multiple times. Minis are cheap to build, gatable, and arguably tougher to kill off when they do get fired upon. <Hmm, is there any analysis of how easily a B-52 with at least shielding goes down to a kamikaze missile ship attack?> Downside comparitively is vulnerability to mines (you need to be careful), fuel requirements (more SFX) - or higher comparitive cost of putting good scoops on the minis (8 minis = 8 engines vs. 4 engines on 1 B-52; same bomb load.) And, which might be important, you need two or more design slots of minis to use more than one bomb type.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
AMP-Nubs:
|
I favor 2 AMP, 3 Cap. 2 CPS if I have RS. Some jamming, and then load out the rest with deflectors. Some jamming since otherwise the design *is* dependent somewhat on having chaff along. Designs often come out to a relatively even cost of Iron, Bora, and Germ. Though, interestingly enough, they sometimes cost more in resources than my corresponding missile/torpedo ship.
I would think IS would favor more Caps to save on Weapons cost. I've seen WM go the other way since they get a Weapons discount.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
ARM/Omega Nubs:
|
ARMs vs Omegas are repeatedly discussed. I seem to end up in games with high jamming and thus favor using Omegas for the reduced iron cost and easy ability to get battlespeed 2.5 with a 3 stack Omega design (see below). You can also get a ~310kt 2 stack Omega; which can safely gate. Doing this with ARMS is a 1 stack ship - which IMO is not an efficient design from the few times I've met and fought them.
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
Now what concerns me:
I did not talk about the costs - and i mean germanium.
Using many cheap computers give same accuracy than one slot of expensive nexi. And with heavy ARMs i got one more slot anyway.
Also I plan not to use and deflectors, so even more spare slots... anyone experience with that???
|
I've used designs subbing SBCs for Nexi in specific counter-design torpedo Nubians. Generally attempts at gatable designs with light missile loads that thus had more free slots. I tend to only load my torp designs with 2 or 3 slots. That way I can get 2.5 battle speed easily (retreat firing), balance out my iron expenditure somewhat compared to other minerals, and also have spare slots to use for some combination of comps, jammers, deflectors, cloaks, or extra shields if I have RS. I end up with designs that are weaker ship-to-ship but have some other potential advantages.
[The cloaking is for what I call "operational cloaking". A fleet of these is not going to successfully creep into enemy space. However, an enemy (even an IS to some degree) is gonna have trouble tracking tokens of this design. Especially when they're in a planetary orbit. And with a gatable torp ship a sizable token can become a battle-turning surprise. <Exercise: Work out how good (or how close) a pen-scan scout has to be to spot a 91% cloaked token in orbit around a planet.>]
| Robert wrote on Wed, 05 November 2003 03:48 |
And one last thing: CHAFF
|
I'm not crazy about any alternatives I've seen offered to standard chaff. See the "DDs and FFs" thread for something of a discussion about this. I've also built mini-gun chaff *once* as an IS race. Yea, it sweeps better, and it's t
...
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 06 November 2003 08:05 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Quote: |
...
I did not talk about the costs - and i mean germanium.
|
I have just one answer: miniaturization. In the current game I'm playing HP IS, and my first 6 AMP 6 CPS Nub costed about 160/180/230 in minerals. Even with three remote mining fleets of 4000 mines and several germ-rich planets already mined I had permanent germ deficit. So I decided to stop building Nubs and put most (about 100k) resources into research of elec and later shields. Now the same Nub costs about 140/180/170. Also, I've decided to stop building factories on newer planets, when they hit 1000 res. That allowed me to build 30% more Nubs. If you want more, ally with an AR. 
About chaff: three jammers 50 cost me 18 germ. It's IMO cheaper to go with them than to build much chaff. But that depends of you opponent's fleet composition. If he has a lot of missile ships you'll need chaff too, at least for one round. If he hasn't, put deflectors instead of jammers. You can still build chaff later, if needed.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 06 November 2003 14:37 |
|
|
|
I should think everyone knows this but just in case...
Let's say a beam weapons does 100 damage just to make the math easier...
12 beams = 1200
9 beams + 3 caps = 1197
6 beams + 6 caps = 1062
Basically it all depends on G vs B+Resources.
9 beams vs 12 costs you 0.25% of damage for a rather large saving in resources.
6 beams vs 9 beams costs you 11.3% of damage. So the question is can you increase you fleet by more than 11.3% then you should use 6 beams and 6 caps.
BTW... if you're HE - you HAVE to use 6 beam weapons and 6 of those 20% capacitors. If you do the maths (don't worry, I did for you) 6 of those 20% caps will increase your damage output by 298.6% - that means those caps nearly triple the damage you can throw at people.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 06 November 2003 15:07 |
|
|
|
I was just doing basic maths with a simple number.
I didn't realise 2.5 was the max increase. I thought it was 7 cap limit (IIRC).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Sun, 16 November 2003 20:04 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 16:53 |
Bombers (for IS) -
|
One option for IS is a pop bomb. If you want to reduce the cost a lot, LBU the world free of defenses and pop drop the same turn. To get a 1 year kill with just cherries will be very expensive. Against IS 2 year kills might be a problem, they might be able to rebuild the defenses for a turn or two.
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 16:53 |
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.
|
I love it when my enemy goes for high init beamers. I'll let them have init, and then go in with more defelctors and cheaper ships, and blast them.
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 16:53 |
So for using 5 slots of the nubian, 12 AMP's and 3 caps is the best choice for power.
|
If you factor in cost, then you will want caps.
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 16:53 |
Just one last little note about deflectors - anything more than 9 of them is also a waste.
|
There is no limit to deflectors.
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 16:53 |
Conversely, 7 jammer 50's is the absolute maximum that will provide a decrease in accuracy.
|
There is a max of 95% jamming on ships. 5 j50s does that, 4 is very close. 3 is probably all you really want.
[Updated on: Sun, 16 November 2003 20:05]
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Mon, 17 November 2003 03:02 |
|
| Robert |
| Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
Well, thanks for all that comments... keep on talking...
I got a bit nervous when you told me that more than 3 stacks of deflectors was a waste... but when leit is correct my design seems not be bad at all...
i did the following:
- ram16
- 4 deflectors
- 2 shields
- 1 jammer50
- 2 caps
- 3 amp
i took the "hard to kill" version.
with RS i prefere the shields over the deflector (thought about replacing one shield agasint one more deflector), but the shield stacking is that great that i dont lose ships for a long time.
also fighting several IT they will have less problems producing arm/omega nubs...
that why i went for shields.
so against beams i am well protected now, and i dont really understand why people add computers or jets.
higher init is a waste, as you can have 33% more firepower or 30% more deflection. thats always worth second shot.
and move 2 or 2.5?
you cant reach disengaging ships regardless of speed, and you
can shoot disengaging missleboats in turn3 with move 2 or 2.5,
so why jets?
ok, you can shoot the base one move earlier. but who cares about
the base? i have some missleboats ready, and... ah...
the base is just not what i worry about...
so: no jets, no computers...
what i really fear is their missleboats....
thats why i think about chaff designs, fast chaff, shielded
chaff and this... i need to find out what missle boat they
field, then i will decide...
for now thanks to all of you, you helped me a lot.
keep on discussing 
robert
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Late game chaff |
Wed, 19 November 2003 18:28 |
|
| Micha | 
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 22:53 |
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.
|
Going for init with nubs? NEVER EVER NEVER. Nubs are just so wonderfull in aborbing damage they don't care about getting the first shot.
Exceptions being of course chaff killers, chaff killer killers or other specialist designs.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Power: yes, cost: bad choice, a slot of AMPs will cost you 81 resources (101 for IS) and 66kT bor (82kT for IS), a slot of eny caps cost you ... 6 resources and 9kT germ ... So which method is cheapest in paying per dp? How much more nubs can you build with this? How much more dp shielding will those bring?
| Quote: |
Generally, I would prefer to use one more slot for weaps and get more bang along with computers to out init my opponent.
|
Again: never.
| Quote: |
Just one last little note about deflectors - anything more than 9 of them is also a waste.
|
I very strongly disagree with that. I've used nubs with upto 18 deflectors with great succes.
If you like numbers, this is a "cut and paste" (can't remember where I got them):
| Quote: |
Each deflector mounted on a ship multiplies all beam damage dealt to that ship by 0.9.
E.g. with 3 deflectors the ship takes 72.9% of the full beam damage.
6 deflectors = 53.1% of full beam damage
9 deflectors = 38.7% of full beam damage
12 deflectors = 28.2% of full beam damage.
15 deflectors = 20.6% of full beam damage
18 deflectors = 15% of full beam damage.
|
There is no limit like with the eny caps.
Imagine your WM enemy with his extremly powerfull beam DNs (most powerfull ship you can get) facing your 18 def nub which reduces his firepower to just a fraction of what it "should be", this is wonderfull! Those def nubs are much cheaper than the DNs, sure they fire after the DNs but they shrug of that first shot since it's just a tiny scratch on their shields, their own firepower per ship might not be that great but combined (cheaper so more ships) they blow away the enemy DN fleet which can't use deflectors (or only a very few) so take the full load. Those 2 slots of AMPs on your nubs will hold more power than all 38 beams on the DN.
This is versus beams of course, if the enemy is still bringing lots of missiles ships you need some protection against those too, and possibly a bit more firepower since it might take some time to get in range of the missiles and when you finally do you want to kill that missile stack in the first shot you get at them.
I'm not looking to start a "DN vs nub" here, I'm just taking the DNs as an example since they can be the beam ship with the most power and have higher init than the nubs ... It's the same for nub vs nub (beam vs beam), the nub with the most defs should win, rest of the design, resources and minerals spent being equal, iow change an eny cap for a def and you're ship will live longer.
mch
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Wed, 19 November 2003 19:13 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| Robert wrote on Mon, 17 November 2003 09:02 |
Well, thanks for all that comments... keep on talking...
I got a bit nervous when you told me that more than 3 stacks of deflectors was a waste... but when leit is correct my design seems not be bad at all...
|
He's right, and your design isn't so bad at all.
| Quote: |
i did the following:
- ram16
- 4 deflectors
- 2 shields
- 1 jammer50
- 2 caps
- 3 amp
i took the "hard to kill" version.
with RS i prefere the shields over the deflector (thought about replacing one shield agasint one more deflector), but the shield stacking is that great that i dont lose ships for a long time.
also fighting several IT they will have less problems producing arm/omega nubs...
that why i went for shields.
|
This design looks nice, good shielding against missile boats, good fire power for once you get in range of the missile boats. Should you be facing mostly beams however you could go for this:
(assuming you mean eny22 shields in your design)
- ram16
- 21 deflectors 
- 2 shields eny18
- 1 jammer50
- 2 amp
I checked this with a max tech testbed so this might not be a good idea in your game! With max tech I could build this design looking at iron/germ/resources 23 vs 19, bor even 27 vs 19, but the main idea is to spend less germ. This design is slightly better against beamers (because of the more defs of course), however worse against missile ships (less shielding, less fire power), so might not be a good idea in your case, also depending on tech levels. (eny 22 shields costs almost twice the germ but does not provide twice the dp)
| Quote: |
so against beams i am well protected now, and i dont really understand why people add computers or jets.
higher init is a waste, as you can have 33% more firepower or 30% more deflection. thats always worth second shot.
and move 2 or 2.5?
|
Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Late game chaff |
Wed, 19 November 2003 23:38 |
|
| zoid |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 13:53 |
AMP Nubs....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.
|
I know you've already been beat to death on this, but nobody mentioned my own perspective on this.
I like init too, but I achieve it differently. Like the rest of the opinions here, I dislike computers on a beamer. Here is how I go about getting the upper hand in init - his weapon range minus 1.
If your opponent is fielding AMP nubians, try testbedding an SP (range 1 pulverizer) nubian design to counter it. If his nub and yours both have 2.5 movement, your SP nub will close to attacking distance and shoot before his longer range AMP's do. As a bonus, the SP is cheaper. For this reason I like having one less range than my opponent - a single range point advantage in beams seems more like a liability than an advantage due to the better init and lower cost of the shorter range weapon, which always fires first. A range difference of 2 becomes problematic, however. If they prefer range 3 weapons, I prefer range 2. If they prefer range 2 weapons like AMP's, I prefer the range 1 SP.
One oddity I've discovered in this approach is that occasionally, it is necessary to equip your shorter-range ship with a bank of shield sappers to get first shot with your SP's. I don't know why, I just know that it works for me. I've testbedded counterdesigns using shorter range weapons and I'd sometimes fail to gain first shot, but when I modified the design to include a bank of shield sappers, then I achieved first shot with the SP's consistently.
I really don't know why AMP's are the most popular beam weapon by such a large margin - I only prefer the AMP over the SP if my opponent is primarily using range 3 beams. Then you enjoy the same init advantage along with the lower cost AND a more powerful weapon.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math?  Ummm, sure!  I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 20 November 2003 06:23 |
|
| Robert |
| Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
| zoid wrote on Thu, 20 November 2003 05:38 |
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 16 November 2003 13:53 |
AMP Nubs....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.
|
I know you've already been beat to death on this, but nobody mentioned my own perspective on this.
I like init too, but I achieve it differently. Like the rest of the opinions here, I dislike computers on a beamer. Here is how I go about getting the upper hand in init - his weapon range minus 1.
If your opponent is fielding AMP nubians, try testbedding an SP (range 1 pulverizer) nubian design to counter it. If his nub and yours both have 2.5 movement, your SP nub will close to attacking distance and shoot before his longer range AMP's do. As a bonus, the SP is cheaper. For this reason I like having one less range than my opponent - a single range point advantage in beams seems more like a liability than an advantage due to the better init and lower cost of the shorter range weapon, which always fires first. A range difference of 2 becomes problematic, however. If they prefer range 3 weapons, I prefer range 2. If they prefer range 2 weapons like AMP's, I prefer the range 1 SP.
One oddity I've discovered in this approach is that occasionally, it is necessary to equip your shorter-range ship with a bank of shield sappers to get first shot with your SP's. I don't know why, I just know that it works for me. I've testbedded counterdesigns using shorter range weapons and I'd sometimes fail to gain first shot, but when I modified the design to include a bank of shield sappers, then I achieved first shot with the SP's consistently.
I really don't know why AMP's are the most popular beam weapon by such a large margin - I only prefer the AMP over the SP if my opponent is primarily using range 3 beams. Then you enjoy the same init advantage along with the lower cost AND a more powerful weapon.
|
good idea, but i got prop16 and the ramscoops, while they field the transstart. so their ships are significantly lighter than mine (no jets, no armor)...
with being heavier and having shorter range, i dont like the idea of SP... if i had the transstar and a prop-tech advantage, this would be a good idea...
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 20 November 2003 06:28 |
|
| Robert |
| Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
| iztok wrote on Thu, 20 November 2003 08:11 |
Hi!
| Quote: |
it is just AMPs on nubians i was referring to!
with rang2 you dont need to be faster than 2... IMO
(not if the alterntive is more deflectors or caps)
|
I had the same design and had a hard time with opponent's nubs with 6 tech-22 sappers, 9 AMPs and 3 super computers. My ships moved in the first round just into range of his sappers, and in the next round they got sapped again and half of them was killed with AMPs.
He didn't include any jammers, so I countered his design with 2.5 speed Omega nubs. 've won quite some battles with them.
BR, Iztok
|
Uh, hope my enemies dont read this
Anyway... the situation is a bit special:
It will be a war of 2-3 large alliances, so we will mostly end up in battles with relatively close starting positions. so the "normal" order of movements (start 7 steps from each other) is not the usual case...
I am beginning to think about mutas right now... many enemies with different designs.... maybe first shot, chaff gone, and omegas with lower init than the mutas might be not too bad...
but i have a lot of work right now and might not be able to testbed much the next days... and once i decided to build a design i dont like to change it and have 2 small tokens with lower shield stacking...
anyway - i will keep this in mind as an important thing to remember
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 20 November 2003 14:19 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| LEit wrote on Thu, 20 November 2003 02:15 |
| Micha wrote on Wed, 19 November 2003 19:13 |
- ram16
- 21 deflectors
- 2 shields eny18
- 1 jammer50
- 2 amp
|
I'd really recommend going to 4 slots of deflectors and 3 slots of caps. Caps are cheaper, and against beams you lose a little bit - less deflection, but more offensive power. However against any other type of ship (missiles) you gain 10%
|
Of course. I said the above nub would be a good design facing mostly beamers (when missile ships are as good as gone and only used as for example fast bomber/freighter killers, no longer as main line beam ships), when still plenty of missiles along you're better off with more fire power, like Roberts own design.
Also this was more specificly aimed at less germ consumption, since the eny22 shields use a lot of germ I suggested the eny18 shields, adding more defs to compensate the shield loss (again: against beamers, this won't help against missile ships).
mch
[Updated on: Thu, 20 November 2003 14:21] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 20 November 2003 16:01 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
I just checked the numbers on this. Deflectors indeed are better then capacitors if your opponent does not have RS and you do. They are also better if you both have RS and you have more shields then the opponent does. However, if both you and your opponent have RS and go with max deflectors, then 1 to 1 neither ship will get through the shields. 2 to 1 vs 1 CPS and you can kill about half of his ships. 2 to 1 vs 2 CPS designs, and you won't get through the shields before the battle ends...
If you don't have RS, you want to maximize the damage done, so use capacitors. You will need more ships if the opponent has RS. About 2 to 1 to win with minimal losses. With 1.3 to one odds in your favor, you'll lose without doing any damage.
However, if you know you will have the bigger stacks, then capacitors makes sense again, so you can pound through their shield stack faster.
Designs for RS are:
2CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 7BD
2CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 4BD, 3Cap
1CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 5BD, 3Cap
Designs for Non-RS are:
1CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 5BD, 3Cap
Numbers were crunched in excel, the battle board isn't as neat. It was 100 of one design vs 100 (or more) of the other design, no other ships were accounted for.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 20 November 2003 18:27 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| LEit wrote on Thu, 20 November 2003 22:01 |
I just checked the numbers on this. Deflectors indeed are better then capacitors if your opponent does not have RS and you do. They are also better if you both have RS and you have more shields then the opponent does.
|
Yup, IIRC (can't do the math myself) defs reduce damage more than caps can make damage done increase.
| Quote: |
However, if both you and your opponent have RS and go with max deflectors, then 1 to 1 neither ship will get through the shields. 2 to 1 vs 1 CPS and you can kill about half of his ships. 2 to 1 vs 2 CPS designs, and you won't get through the shields before the battle ends...
|
True again, when testing the design I mentioned with the 21 defs I came across this.
But also have seen it happening in a real game, (roughly equal) enemy beamer stack pounding on my RS def nubs but the shields regenned too fast and the defs reduced the enemy nub firepower to nothing, my shields didn't get down during the entire battle while my nubs _did_ get through their shields.
RS is wonderful, never leave home without it!
| Quote: |
If you don't have RS, you want to maximize the damage done, so use capacitors. You will need more ships if the opponent has RS. About 2 to 1 to win with minimal losses. With 1.3 to one odds in your favor, you'll lose without doing any damage.
|
That makes sense, without RS you are already on the losing end if you go defensive, so better to indeed maximize damage done, but you'll have to bring more ships. RS is again wonderful, it gives you 40% extra shielding at the same tech level as the non RS, that plus they regenerate, absolutely wonderful! 
| Quote: |
However, if you know you will have the bigger stacks, then capacitors makes sense again, so you can pound through their shield stack faster.
Designs for RS are:
2CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 7BD
2CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 4BD, 3Cap
1CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 5BD, 3Cap
Designs for Non-RS are:
1CPS, 2AMP, 1J30, 5BD, 3Cap
Numbers were crunched in excel, the battle board isn't as neat. It was 100 of one design vs 100 (or more) of the other design, no other ships were accounted for.
|
You mean more ships when possible for same amount of minerals/resources? Or were the differences too small?
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game chaff |
Thu, 20 November 2003 19:58 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| Micha wrote on Thu, 20 November 2003 18:27 |
You mean more ships when possible for same amount of minerals/resources? Or were the differences too small?
|
I didn't calculate costs at all for this post, however, I expanded the spreadsheet quite a bit, and got Ron to post it in the AMP Nubians thread. Go take a look, and play with it some, it's interesting, even if it is only a small section of a battle.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 01 21:17:32 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
