Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » More Nub Design
| More Nub Design |
Thu, 22 June 2006 09:28  |
|
 TheShadow7478 |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 33
Registered: March 2006
Location: Long Island/NYC | |
|
Initiative on Nubs.
Beam nubs.
I know first shot wins often due to the high dmg being dealt out, but would it be worth it to put a slot of next, thereby if your opponent wanted better he would need 2 slots? (nexi not bsc)
I think you are sacrificing a bit, probably use a 2 weapon slot design, or do you use 3 since you are going for offense, and sacrifice more deflectors?
Assume regen shield for this example.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: More Nub Design |
Thu, 22 June 2006 13:30  |
|
|
|
| TheShadow7478 wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 14:28 |
Initiative on Nubs.
Beam nubs.
I know first shot wins often due to the high dmg being dealt out, but would it be worth it to put a slot of next, thereby if your opponent wanted better he would need 2 slots? (nexi not bsc)
I think you are sacrificing a bit, probably use a 2 weapon slot design, or do you use 3 since you are going for offense, and sacrifice more deflectors?
Assume regen shield for this example.
|
I'm certainly no expert, but...
Take a base design: 2 slots of Elephant shields, 3 of AMP, 3 of capacitors and 4 of deflectors (keeping things simple).
We'll go one-on-one between one of these, and your variant with Nexi instead of a slot of deflectors.
One of these will inflict a little over 9000 damage per round.
Deflectors will reduce this to about 2500, and they have 5000 armour and 4200 shields (9200 dp total, with RS).
Now, one slot of deflectors for one of Nexi. You are going to fire first, but will take about 3500 damage from his ships (1000 more).
You would have got 1st shot 50% of the time anyway, so you are buying yourself 1st shot the other 50% of the time. So you are buying 50% of a shot that would do 2500 damage, and the cost to you is 1000dp per shot thereafter.
So, you shoot first doing 2500 damage.
He shoots next doing 3500.
Then you fire again, doing another 2500 (5000 total so far, his shields have dropped).
Then he fires, doing 3500 (7000 so far, shields down)
Your 3rd shot takes you up to 7500 damage; he's and is 56% damaged.
His 3rd shot kills you (10500 total).
Also, your design costs 27 more resources and 60 more germanium than his.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: More Nub Design |
Thu, 22 June 2006 16:32 |
|
|
|
"go one-on-one" imo is often a mistake. You need to look at big picture, what combos are out there already.
So for example if your nub beamers can outshoot any other beamer, but his beamer battleships will kill all your chaff before they get attacked/killed, and then his missile boat battleships kill your nubs you lose.
There is no one good design, it all depends on what is already in play and what else is expected.
| Quote: |
would it be worth it to put a slot of next
|
imo depends on mineral situation and what ships are already in play.
If you want to fight a bit for first strike, alternatives include going shorter range beamer, sapper, or gattling.
Can your missile boats finish him off if you sap his shields and kill his chaff? How much germ do you have? How much bor? How heavy are his beamers?
[Updated on: Thu, 22 June 2006 16:45] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: More Nub Design |
Fri, 23 June 2006 10:37 |
|
| Sr.Seven |
 | Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 67
Registered: January 2006 | |
|
I would like to echo, but go a step further.
Your premise seems to be that the initiative fight is not worth winning or even fighting in the Nubian era. While this may work in a 1 on 1 engineered environment, it is often suicide in real game situations. I am not saying that low init designs never work, but rather that they should be considered as possible counterdesigns rather than as potential main line beamers.
But beyond this, the design you have presented is... well... flawed.
3 AMP
3 CAP
2 ES
4 ED
Notice something missing? I know you were trying to keep it simple, but -
As you reach the end of the BB era, fleets are typically dominated by ARM BBs, MegaD BBs, and sometimes D, or AMP BBs (and chaff). There are 2 noteworthy things here:
1) All of these ships have a +8 initiative bonus when compared to the same concept on a nubian hull
2) There are missile boats out there. You left off your jammers.
When I build Nubs in this era, I never leave off jammers. In fact, I usually consider using 2 stacks of J30s. {why? They render ARMS ineffective and force my opponent to switch to Omegas.} What this means is that BOTH ships have too much deflection going on, and possibly too much shielding.
It gets worse though. Your wonderful low init Nub could not survive against an AMP BB (11k to 15k per shot depending on caps... so 5.5k to 7.5k per volley against your NUB). To beat the BB you either have to have vastly superior numbers (Nubs are cheap, so eventually you will get this) or initiative. Initiative costs 1 stack of Nexi. 
So what if the AMP BB has a single nexi (or even a BSC) on the front slot? (I've seen this and done this.) Why then you need two stacks of nexi on your Nub. 
But going back to your design - IF - you take it into a mixed fleet battle, it is reasonable to assume that there will be sappers present. If we assume that everyone brings enough sappers, then your shields are no longer in play... and roughly 50% of your stack dies when the higher init group fires its first volley. 
So why is it better to fire first? You get the first opportunity to score whole ship kills. You get the ability to prevent some of the enemy from shooting back. The cost of firing first may well be 1000dp per enemy ship per turn, but the cost of not firing first in this era is 25% to 50% of your fleet lost before you can fire at all.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: More Nub Design |
Sat, 24 June 2006 11:09 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Erm, the nub is 68% deflected, so the damage from 20 AMP + 7 capacitors BB is not 17k but 5.3k. The damage from nub's return fire is 6.9k. So with first shot BBs sap shields and kill for every 5 BBs one nub. In return fire each nub kills almost one BB
|
If nubs have less deflectors but first strike (slot of Nexus), then they would kill the battleships without losing shields or ships... so in answer to original question in this case Nexus would be good.
Without first strike, adding 1/4 extra damaged (overgated) BBs results in nub slaughter eg: round 1 some nubs lost, nub first shot takes out BB shields but all BBs survive (or overgated ones die if no time to merge fleets) , BB second shot takes out nubs.
All other things being equal, the side that doesn't rush to nubs will have more territory and/or ships when nubs come out, side with nubs needs to either press advantage or out last in minerals.
...
Throw in chaff and missile ships on each side and BBs may become stronger. Assuming both sides have battlespeed 1.75, nubs have no computers, no one uses disengage orders...
Round 1: Both sides advance 2 and are now 3 apart. Flak advances one. Missiles hit flak. Only range 3 attacks like dedicated sappers get a shot off.
Round 2: Missiles hit flak. BBs being heavier advance first and will be in range of enemy chaff. We'll assume Nubs have max damage orders so they advance to reach chaff too (otherwise nub side loses in later missile war).
If sappers exist, they get second shot off. Then BBs kill flak, damage nubs. (If gatable cruiser/gallien missile boats exist, they do serious damage to nubs)
Then nubs kill flak, but this takes a bigger % of their firepower. Likely they can do serious damage to battleships.
Round 3: Likely missiles on both sides can only reach enemy beamers. If nubs are shieldless, then likely both sides lose all beamers, and we are down to missile boat fight.
Notes: sappers are strong here (extra shot off round 1) if nub side doesn't exploit the sapper bug/feature.
Nexus/first strike nubs in this case may have meant nubs have shields left and survive round 3 missiles.
[Updated on: Sat, 24 June 2006 11:23] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: More Nub Design |
Sat, 24 June 2006 16:46 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| multilis wrote on Sat, 24 June 2006 17:09 |
If nubs have less deflectors but first strike (slot of Nexus), then they would kill the battleships without losing shields or ships... so in answer to original question in this case Nexus would be good.
|
In a ship to ship comparison true. I game reality  wrong. A typical first beamer nub design costs about 200kT germ. 3 nexus cost ~100 germ. So mineral-wise those 3 nexuses would result in 33% less nubs built. Thank you very much for such a suggestion!  
| Quote: |
Without first strike, adding 1/4 extra damaged (overgated) BBs results in nub slaughter eg: round 1 some nubs lost, nub first shot takes out BB shields but all BBs survive (or overgated ones die if no time to merge fleets) , BB second shot takes out nubs.
|
Erm, return fire from nubs kills almost the same number of BBs than there are nubs. Where did you get such large amount of BBs to kill nubs in the second round? Well, a player with BBs can have them, but then the player with nubs is just plain stupid to enter the battle he can't win, esp. when he knows he just needs some more nubs to kill whole fleets of BBs with minimal loses on his side.
BTW in your battle sim you're assuming lots of things to favor BBs. However where are dedicated sapper Nubs/BBs to sap BBs' shields? Where are sapper/MegaDisruptor 2.5 speed Nubs with disengage order to counter known fleets of AMP BBs? See? 
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sat, 24 June 2006 16:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: More Nub Design |
Sun, 25 June 2006 01:47 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
return fire from nubs kills almost the same number of BBs than there are nubs
|
You lost all your shields before starting to lose Nubs. 1/4 more battleships at 5.3K damage each take out an extra 1/4 of your nubs on top of the 1/5 you already said were lost.
Now you have to cut through BB shields before destroying BB, with ratio of 1.25 BB (25% BB added), to your 0.55 (lost .2+.25) Nubs remaining... he has over double the ships.
| Quote: |
first beamer nub design costs about 200kT germ. 3 nexus cost ~100 germ. So mineral-wise those 3 nexuses would result in 33% less nubs built
|
Iron and Bor minerals stay the same. 90 germ nexus, 12 germ BD so only 78 extra.
| Quote: |
assuming lots of things to favor BBs
|
I was following path you replied to. They suggested ship designs, including mentioning possible bb sappers.
You already know weakness of sappers. You can likely think about and guess very similar weakness of using disengage with beamers.
Your range 3 regular beamers might face range 3 battleships or range 2 cruisers/galleons (you need battle computers to out init cruiser/galleon, and they can gate better than nubs and split up into smaller fleets).
[Updated on: Sun, 25 June 2006 01:48] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: More Nub Design |
Sun, 25 June 2006 09:07 |
|
|
|
| PricklyPea wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 07:19 |
| iztok wrote on Sat, 24 June 2006 16:46 |
Where are sapper/MegaDisruptor 2.5 speed Nubs with disengage order to counter known fleets of AMP BBs?
|
What is this tactic? I've never seen it.
|
These Nubs weigh less, move faster and shoot further, so the first few firing rounds are fought at range three - the mega-ds and sappers fire but not the amps. By the time the nubs are pushed into a corner so can no longer stay out of range, then they should have disengaged... Similar to 2.5 speed ARMs on disengage.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: More Nub Design |
Sun, 25 June 2006 10:50 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
first few firing rounds are fought at range three...disengage
|
Unless they back up too much trying to stay out of range of torps/missiles to hit anything. Disengage and min-damage orders on beamers carry risks of opponent is skilled.
...
| Quote: |
nubians can always field for the same amount of minerals and resources fleets
|
I think we all agree nub is best hull.
Back to nexus, IMO the best usage of BB against Nubs is to suicide kill flak to help missile boats. Nexus at times is useful to make killing flak harder.
Nexus is also useful to kill opponents flak.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: More Nub Design |
Sun, 25 June 2006 14:09 |
|
| Sr.Seven |
| Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 67
Registered: January 2006 | |
|
| iztok wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 07:11 |
Hi!
IMO it is pointless to discuss such things without actuall game,
|
I always hate it when general ship design discussions deteriorate into a call for game cases or dismissal of solutions on the same basis. Rules of thumb can be derived, though admitedly any design in the Nubian era can be countered.
The question as to initiative can be answered, at least for the general case or defined typical cases. The longstanding rule of thumb has been that initiative is worth getting. "Shoot first and win" or some such. Do we have any reason to doubt this?
In certain 1 v 1 situations or beamer only actions, it seems that designs that trade initiative for either greater offrnse (another stack of AMPS perhaps) or defense (deflectors, or even shields) do better. These types of actions are not typical, or at least not typical of the decisive main fleet engagements that we build these ships for.
In main fleet actions, we can and should expect missiles (gatable or otherwise), chaff, and often sappers. MegaD Beamers and Gattling ships are also possibilities.
The question is whether and where initiative is worth having.
Mainline missile ships? For sure. Established ad nauseum long ago.
Gating Reserve Missile ships? Probably the same, but less important.
Sappers? They need to shoot before the beamers. You'd like them to shoot before your missiles. It is not important that they shoot before enemy sappers though.
Auxillery Beamers? MagaD Ships? This is tricky, sometimes MegaDs are the mainline ships. I'll address them later as mainlines. All other Auxillery Beamers? Not especially important, but worth KNOWING.
Mainline Beamers? With sappers or missiles present in quantity, with shields down or nearly down, the first shot has the advantage. Absent these... Well I guess it isn't much of a fight.
Thoughts?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: More Nub Design |
Sun, 25 June 2006 17:39 |
|
|
|
| Sr.Seven wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 19:09 |
The question is whether and where initiative is worth having.
|
Or, maybe more appropriately, how much is it worth paying to win the initiative contest ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: More Nub Design |
Tue, 27 June 2006 08:18 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
all mainline beam nubs have at least 3 slots of BDs on them
|
I agree. We should make it a game rule that all my enemies must have this design as mainline ship. Rock/paper/scissors game easier to win if I know others will always pick rock.
BD turtles are good against other beamers but weak against chaff killers + missiles.
[Updated on: Tue, 27 June 2006 08:28] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: More Nub Design |
Tue, 27 June 2006 13:31 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
until someone proposes nubs should lose remaining 8 slots
|
According to usual logic, you also need 3 beam weapons, 2 shields, and 3 caps, with 3BD that leaves only 1 slot of suprise on your mainline nubs.
2 slots of SC can first strike you for chaff killing, cost less germ than 1 Nexus.
2.5 speed missile boats get 2 shots off before they disengage, and they don't care about BD.
[Updated on: Tue, 27 June 2006 13:33] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 20:08:06 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
