Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » least useful hull (for science)
| least useful hull |
Wed, 23 April 2014 08:56  |
|
 Inquisitor80 |
 | Warrant Officer |
Messages: 115
Registered: February 2004
Location: The dark places in betwee... | |
|
I am curious which ship hull people use the least
mostly the general ones not the PRT specific ones, but those too i suppose
please also say "why" you don't use it
personally i don't tend to use the Gallon all that much, it seems to general and not really super good at anything
i prefer ships that are purpose driven, or at least tiered purpose. like scouts do scout (duh) then they can be boosters, and then finally chaff. but they are not a chimera that doesn't have personality
- Inquisitor80
___________________________________
We must move forwards not backwards, upwards not forwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: least useful hull |
Wed, 23 April 2014 12:29  |
|
| Inquisitor80 |
| Warrant Officer |
Messages: 115
Registered: February 2004
Location: The dark places in betwee... | |
|
craebild wrote on Wed, 23 April 2014 10:55The small freighter is only use until you can build medium freighters, and most people make sure they can build medium freighters pretty fast.
The various remote mining hulls are also a good candidate for rarely used hulls, I don't think many non-AR try any remote mining, and AR generally want their remote miners to be gateable.
Interesting, i didn't know most don't RM
I sometimes build a planet stripping fleet when the mineral crunch is about to happen so i can go strip reds and other races planets
thats late game however, when you can build lots of fuel xports to offset fuel used by the big RMs, plus the miniaturization of higher tech to make them cheaper
- Inquisitor80
___________________________________
We must move forwards not backwards, upwards not forwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: least useful hull |
Thu, 24 April 2014 09:20 |
|
|
|
If I were to name the single least useful hull in my book, it would be Small Freighter. I virtually never use them, relying on Medium Freighters or Privateers for short-range haulage.
The reasoning between it is simple:
Usually there are two types of races I play. Those with cheap Construction and those with expensive Construction (in some allied games where allies have it cheap, or some such).
If I have cheap Con, getting Con 4 and Privateers is a breeze - usually doable before HW crowding sets in.
If I have expensive Con, I usually check the "All +75% fields start @ 3" option. This gives me Con 3 (= Medium Freighters) from the drop of the flag.
Either way, why bother with Small Freighters?
In some games, I remember having used Small Freighters for techtrade by popdropping. Still, if I happen to have a MF or Priv on my design list, I don't bother wasting an extra design slot that might house, say, a battleship. The only situation where I'd go for Small Freighters would be when all my active transports are Large Freighters, I have an unused design slot, and there's a need to design a cheap throwaway ship just for popdrop trade. Then, Small Freigher might just be the cheapest option.
As for the other ship designs that showed up in this discussion, I use them more often, as their use is subject to situational suitability.
Galleons, while being rarely used, are nonetheless useful. It just so happens that many players don't quite have an idea on how to use them. They can act as transports, scanning ships, minelayers, invasion ships, light warships, overcloakers... you name it. Ever wondered why the SS players out there insist on using Rogues? The Galleon gives (almost) the same flexibility, albeit in a bigger, clumsier package that is more expensive. One thing that helps designing Galleon-based ships: think about the purpose. You'll be throwing out quite a lot of minerals and resources - make sure you'll get the bang you wanted for this buck. The best scenario is when you can combine two or more functions in just one package and cut on design slots this way. That's what Inquisitor80 alludes to in his OP - in the light of this, I'm doubly amazed that he doesn't find any serious use for Galleons 
As for the "dust-biters" (as I call the remote mining ships) - the idea is simple. Either you have OBRM and pretty much forget them, or you're ARM and you stick to the ARM-granted hulls and robots. That leaves the other "intermediate" hulls and robots largely ignored. Still, if you're neither ARM or OBRM, you can still benefit from RM - sometimes you end up with all green planets having poor concentrations of the most wanted mineral (usually Iron or Germ), and you have to make do with mining fleets. Even if you're OBRM, sometimes you may be forced to pay the hefty cost up front, just to get the minerals you so badly need. After all, are your 1320 mines@1,3kT/y capacity of any use on a planet with all mineral concentrations reduced to 1 by years of wanton excavation?
For me, the decision on using "dust-biters" is simple. If I need them (i.e. have good MCs on reds nearby, and poor MCs on my greens), I go for them, and then I use the best hull/robot combo available at the time. If not - I don't.
SFX is almost always used, unless you happen to have a dense network of space docks (or better) on your planets and can simply retreat your fleets there for repairs and refuelling. I can think of HE players and other hypergrowth races with wide habitats, who often have ISB as their LRT, not using SFX that much. For all others, SFX is probably one of the indispensable hulls. Given that repair after merge seems allowed in most games, it's one single reason that's good enough to have SFX on your list, whether you use if for R&R or not.
Lastly, expanding on iloverushandledzepp's comment on Colony Ships - you don't need more than one pod per fleet to colonize a planet. Also, if you give Colonize order to a fleet, all ships in that fleet get dismantled for colonization purposes.
For thi
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: least useful hull |
Thu, 24 April 2014 10:17 |
|
| Inquisitor80 |
| Warrant Officer |
Messages: 115
Registered: February 2004
Location: The dark places in betwee... | |
|
Loucipher wrote on Thu, 24 April 2014 08:20
As for the other ship designs that showed up in this discussion, I use them more often, as their use is subject to situational suitability.
Galleons, while being rarely used, are nonetheless useful. It just so happens that many players don't quite have an idea on how to use them. They can act as transports, scanning ships, minelayers, invasion ships, light warships, overcloakers... you name it. Ever wondered why the SS players out there insist on using Rogues? The Galleon gives (almost) the same flexibility, albeit in a bigger, clumsier package that is more expensive. One thing that helps designing Galleon-based ships: think about the purpose. You'll be throwing out quite a lot of minerals and resources - make sure you'll get the bang you wanted for this buck. The best scenario is when you can combine two or more functions in just one package and cut on design slots this way. That's what Inquisitor80 alludes to in his OP - in the light of this, I'm doubly amazed that he doesn't find any serious use for Galleons
It can do all those things but not very well. example, mine laying, i can build a bunch of cheap freighter minelayers for the price of a gallon. gets me more mines. Or Scanning, i can build i don't know how many scouts for the price of a gallon, getting more scan range and flexability. The only time i really make them is for MT interception and for warfleet support, they are tougher than regual freighters and can serve with front line pop/mineral movements. For most of the functions you mention i can think of a better hull, that is probably better at it/cheaper
Loucipher wrote on Thu, 24 April 2014 08:20
As for the "dust-biters" (as I call the remote mining ships) - the idea is simple. Either you have OBRM and pretty much forget them, or you're ARM and you stick to the ARM-granted hulls and robots. That leaves the other "intermediate" hulls and robots largely ignored. Still, if you're neither ARM or OBRM, you can still benefit from RM - sometimes you end up with all green planets having poor concentrations of the most wanted mineral (usually Iron or Germ), and you have to make do with mining fleets. Even if you're OBRM, sometimes you may be forced to pay the hefty cost up front, just to get the minerals you so badly need. After all, are your 1320 mines@1,3kT/y capacity of any use on a planet with all mineral concentrations reduced to 1 by years of wanton excavation?
For me, the decision on using "dust-biters" is simple. If I need them (i.e. have good MCs on reds nearby, and poor MCs on my greens), I go for them, and then I use the best hull/robot combo available at the time. If not - I don't.
you know this is still very intresting, i almost never take OBRM because i like the option of a planet stripping fleet. never occured to me that people would ignore RM. but then i have been out of the loop for 10yrs and have probably forgotten over half of what i knew
Loucipher wrote on Thu, 24 April 2014 08:20
Lastly, expanding on iloverushandledzepp's comment on Colony Ships - you don't need more than one pod per fleet to colonize a planet. Also, if you give Colonize order to a fleet, all ships in that fleet get dismantled for colonization purposes.
For this reason, it pays to keep the good ole' Santa Maria in your design list for longer time (especially if you took IFE and your colonizers are Mizer-equipped). They pack a surprisingly long range, and you can send them together with another fleet of transports (with extra colonists/minerals). You can then give the Colonize order for the colonizer only, and have the other ships simply drop whatever they brought, and return for more. You don't pay an awful lot for a small colonizer, and the rest of the ships can be reused. About the only purpose of having more colony pods per fleet is when you play an AR race - their Orbital Construction Modules double up as bombing pods capable of killing up to 2000 enemy colonists per pod (modified by standard defences cover
...
- Inquisitor80
___________________________________
We must move forwards not backwards, upwards not forwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: least useful hull |
Thu, 24 April 2014 16:12 |
|
|
|
Inquisitor80 wrote on Thu, 24 April 2014 16:17It can do all those things but not very well. example, mine laying, i can build a bunch of cheap freighter minelayers for the price of a gallon. gets me more mines. Or Scanning, i can build i don't know how many scouts for the price of a gallon, getting more scan range and flexability. The only time i really make them is for MT interception and for warfleet support, they are tougher than regual freighters and can serve with front line pop/mineral movements. For most of the functions you mention i can think of a better hull, that is probably better at it/cheaper
That's true, most of the other hulls usually perform any single task better than a Galleon does. You want a pure Transport? Use a Large Freighter. Scanning ship or a Minelayer? A Frigate with appropriate loadout in GP slots will do, and it's light and cheap. Pure Light Warship? That's the Cruiser hull - it runs on just 2 engines vs Galleon's 4, and it's lighter, so it burns much less fuel. Invasion ship? Just throw together a fleet of freighters with appropriate escort and you're set. Overcloaker? Now, here's the catch - up until the Nubian, you don't really have a choice of ship hulls that can match the Galleon at that. Unless you design a heavy, missile-armed BB with supercloaks, but then, where do you put computers and jammers?
But then, look at the list of tasks. If you need one design for each particular task, then you need five designs straight. Given that you also need one chaff design, one minesweeper design (unless you use light warship for it), one colonizer design, one bomber design, one SFX design and at least one each beam/missile mainline warship design, you already use 12 out of 16 design slots. Add a remote miner design and maybe a techtrade scrap design for your ally (in allied games) and you're down to just two free slots. Now, suppose you research some decent technology, and you want to upgrade your warfleets with it. Unless you free up some slots, you're pretty limited. Another player nearby who has more free slots might complete this task a decade sooner than you. This may mean your defeat - while you struggle to have your ships rebuilt, his upgraded warfleets may well be knocking on your door.
Inquisitor80 wrote on Thu, 24 April 2014 16:17you know this is still very intresting, i almost never take OBRM because i like the option of a planet stripping fleet. never occured to me that people would ignore RM. but then i have been out of the loop for 10yrs and have probably forgotten over half of what i knew
From the forum practice (backed by many race design tutorials out there), hypergrowth-type races usually take OBRM, as their wide hab coupled with extra 10% planet capacity lets them inhabit (and mine) most planets they encounter. Red planets, while they still occur, are few and far between, especially in late game when most initial reds become yellows. Thus, OBRM helps those races increase their economy without risking a lot in terms of late-game mineral crunch. The other end of the spectrum, the hyper-producer races, have much narrower habs which means they'll have much more reds between their greens. They can thus benefit from the remote mining much easier, as there will always be some planets containing minerals that cannot be extracted using planet-based mines. They will most probably take ARM, or at least not take OBRM (because planet capacity is not that much important for them, since their economic powerbase comes from many super-efficient factories operated per planet). Their limited planetary mining of inhabited greens coupled with remote mining of remaining reds can get them just the same amount of minerals. Depending on which kind of race you play, you make your choice and live with it.
Of course, this reasoning does not apply to AR races, for which ARM is basically mandatory anyway (their innate mining capacity is just laughable, you'd need a maxed-out DS orbiting a planet to pull out any decent minerals out of it), especially that they can RM all planets, even those
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: least useful hull |
Thu, 24 April 2014 19:09 |
|
|
|
Inquisitor80 wrote on Wed, 23 April 2014 14:56I am curious which ship hull people use the least
mostly the general ones not the PRT specific ones, but those too i suppose
please also say "why" you don't use it
B17-Bomber: Why use the B17-bomber-hull if you can take the mini-bomber-hull? Well, there might be one reason, the B17 can carry 2 types of bombs like LBUs and cherries which allows you to save one ship slot.
Small Freighter: Researching some construction to get the medium freighter is always better... with perhaps 1 exception: low growth AR.
craebild wrote on Wed, 23 April 2014 19:08OBRM gives +10 max. population, which gives +10% resources in mid to late game. But that means that any remote miners that can be build are quite poor, in addition to being expensive. Plus that remote mining fleets are very vulnerable to attack.
I haven't seen any non-AR use remote mining.
Ha! I did... once... and even in multi-player-games, in my first ones. And I was quite proud of my remote-miner-fleets. If I remember correctly I was playing IT (which makes building RM-miners even sillier).
But then the day came when I calculated the cost of those RM-miners in comparison to just bulding more mines or right away in the race creation spending some points for more mines.
Nevertheless there are exceptions:
ARs, of course, they MUST build RM-miners.
And in games which are designed to last long AND you have a low hab... it might be a winner but even then you might also get away by just colonizing the red planets.
[Updated on: Thu, 24 April 2014 19:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: least useful hull |
Thu, 24 April 2014 19:18 |
|
| iloverushandledzepp |
 | Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 80
Registered: April 2014
Location: Canada | |
|
What's so good about AR anyways?
[Updated on: Thu, 24 April 2014 19:19]
Drill on the sun?! I'd rather freeze on Pluto than fry on the sun! What? How much minerals did you say? Well, Since you put it that way...Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: least useful hull |
Fri, 25 April 2014 02:29 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
B-17 Bomber and Miner. B-17 Bombers can't survive a minehit and can't be gated, so they're the worst bomber. Miners are useless, because if you have ARM you're using the Midget Miner anyway. There's also the Small Freighter I guess.
Loucipher wrote on Thu, 24 April 2014 23:20As for the "dust-biters" (as I call the remote mining ships) - the idea is simple. Either you have OBRM and pretty much forget them, or you're ARM and you stick to the ARM-granted hulls and robots. That leaves the other "intermediate" hulls and robots largely ignored.
ARM's not that useful for non-ARs. An Ultra-Miner loaded with Robo-Ultra-Miners isn't all that much more efficient than a Maxi-Miner loaded with Robo-Super-Miners. The biggest benefit of ARM is that you can use Midget Miners with Robo-Ultra-Miners (aka superbugs) which are gateable - but you can't remote-mine inhabited planets, where the gates are, so that doesn't help them escape being sniped. And the point cost is pretty substantial.
Of course, an AR loves the LRT, since they CAN mine inhabited worlds and can therefore gate the bugs around (the WP1 mining is cool, too), and more of their economy is dependent on Remote Mining in the first place, so the small efficiency gain has a magnified effect.
Inquisitor80 wrote on Fri, 25 April 2014 00:17It can do all those things but not very well. example, mine laying, i can build a bunch of cheap freighter minelayers for the price of a gallon. gets me more mines. Or Scanning, i can build i don't know how many scouts for the price of a gallon, getting more scan range and flexability. The only time i really make them is for MT interception and for warfleet support, they are tougher than regual freighters and can serve with front line pop/mineral movements. For most of the functions you mention i can think of a better hull, that is probably better at it/cheaper
Galleons have more engines and can mount more Overthrusters than freighters can, and can therefore achieve 2.5 battle speed while fully loaded (this allows turn 3 battle escape, faster than most enemies can get them in range). They can also be armed, which prevents opponents from using "kill unarmed ships" orders to target them. Between these two attributes, they are by far the best transports in front-line areas - IS aggressive orgies are usually Galleon fleets for this reason.
iloverushandledzepp wrote on Fri, 25 April 2014 09:18What's so good about AR anyways?
You can remote-mine your own worlds. This means you can abuse the 30-concentration mineral floor on inhabited homeworlds to pull unlimited amounts of minerals from them, instead of just maxing out planetary mines as others do. In the lategame this is extraordinarily powerful.
Also, AR has less infrastructure to build than others. No factories and no mines, just terraforming and bigger starbases.
Their nonlinear resource algorithm can be useful, too.
But they're not all that great.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: least useful hull |
Fri, 25 April 2014 20:31 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Fri, 25 April 2014 16:08Don't low growth AR use the tiny freighter (colo ship) not quite filled, in order to not die in transit?
All AR use the colony ship and load it to 2200. Flagposting has direct benefits for AR thanks to the sqrt formula. OCM's expensive enough that a dedicated coloship's worthwhile. And saving on transit losses helps too.
[Updated on: Fri, 25 April 2014 20:37] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: least useful hull |
Sat, 26 April 2014 03:34 |
|
|
|
I wonder if small freighters could be used for effective freight chaff...
I don't remember how cost effective a SF is vs a colony ship during 2460-90.
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: least useful hull |
Sat, 26 April 2014 05:48 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
nmid wrote on Sat, 26 April 2014 17:34I wonder if small freighters could be used for effective freight chaff...
I don't remember how cost effective a SF is vs a colony ship during 2460-90.
Same ratio as at the beginning. They both have tech requirement "none", which means they miniaturise with your lowest field (ie bio, unless you're a TT CA). So nope. Cargo Pod Scouts/Frigates are cheaper for much of the game IIRC - even MFs are cheaper after Con 18.
Technically, a Small Freighter with Cargo Pod is the cheapest way for an IS to keep a 1% red overpopped (at least, early on). But we're talking literally a few resources here.
[Updated on: Sat, 26 April 2014 05:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: least useful hull |
Sun, 27 April 2014 11:35 |
|
|
|
skoormit wrote on Wed, 23 April 2014 22:11
2) war theater planet evacuation (add enough OTs to still have move 2.5 when fully loaded)
Hi.
Was the loose of speed not calculated later. So a full loaded Galleon could never reach 2.5 ?
Ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: least useful hull |
Mon, 28 April 2014 16:21 |
|
| skoormit |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 28 April 2014 03:46
I believe it's Engine -> Weight (+Cargo) -> Overthrusters (+WM) -> Energy Dampener.
This fits my observations, with one addition: the 2.5 max is imposed before the Energy Dampener is applied. Therefore in a battle with an ED, the max speed possible is 2.0.
Since the max final speed is 2.5, the ship designer will only show 2.5, even if you add extra MJ or OT to add "extra" movement.
When battle occurs, Stars subtracts movement for extra weight before imposing the 2.5 max. Therefore if your ship had enough "extra" movement to compensate for the cargo weight, you can still have 2.5 movement when fully loaded.
Quote:
I've heard stories about the Enigma Pulsar's thruster being before weight, though.
This I don't know about, but I don't know how/why it matters.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: least useful hull |
Mon, 28 April 2014 16:49 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 25 April 2014 01:29B-17 Bomber and Miner. B-17 Bombers can't survive a minehit and can't be gated, so they're the worst bomber.
I do like the mini-bomber, but the B-17 has a few advantages:
1) It has two different slots for bombs. This means you can field your standard-lbu mixed bombing fleet without using two ship design slots.
2) It costs less per bomb than the mb. Building four mbs (to get 8 bombs) requires about 13% more iron than one b-17, just for the hull, and you also have to build four engines (instead of just two for the b-17), which adds even more to the iron cost.
3) The b-17 has a scan/elec/mech slot. Adding a fuel tank gives each b-17 a capacity of 650mg and a weight of 472kt (assuming Fuel Mizer engine), while four mbs can hold 480mg and weigh 540kt (276kt for two cherry mbs, 262kt for two lbu-74 mbs). This makes the b-17 more mobile "in the field" where fuel supply can be a challenge.
These advantages often convince me to accept the 9% loss rate of sending the b-17 through 300/500 gates. Even with that loss rate I can gate my b17s twice and still spend less iron per bomb than I would be spending for minibombers.
The b17s do cost about 11% more in resources. Add 10 to that each time you gate them. I am usually iron constrained, though, not resource constrained. And I'll almost always pay a 30% premium in resources on two ship designs to save a design slot.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: least useful hull |
Tue, 29 April 2014 08:32 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
skoormit wrote on Tue, 29 April 2014 06:21magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 28 April 2014 03:46
I believe it's Engine -> Weight (+Cargo) -> Overthrusters (+WM) -> Energy Dampener.
This fits my observations, with one addition: the 2.5 max is imposed before the Energy Dampener is applied. Therefore in a battle with an ED, the max speed possible is 2.0.
It appears I was not clear. At each "step", the maximum of 2.5 and minimum of 0.5 is applied. I believe those are the discrete "steps".
Also, the Energy Dampener slows ships by 1, not 1/2, so the maximum speed with the ED in play is 1.5, not 2.
Quote:Since the max final speed is 2.5, the ship designer will only show 2.5, even if you add extra MJ or OT to add "extra" movement.
When battle occurs, Stars subtracts movement for extra weight before imposing the 2.5 max. Therefore if your ship had enough "extra" movement to compensate for the cargo weight, you can still have 2.5 movement when fully loaded.
It's more complex than that. As I said, the ceiling and floor apply at each step, so for instance (IIRC) WM ships can't be slower than speed 1, no matter how overburdened they are, unless the ED is in play.
Quote:Quote:
I've heard stories about the Enigma Pulsar's thruster being before weight, though.
This I don't know about, but I don't know how/why it matters.
I remember hearing about some >=3 engine EP ships with 0.25 speed reduction from weight coming in at speed 2.25, not 2.5. This would imply that the EP thruster is before weight. It matters because of the ceiling and floor being applied at each step.
skoormit wrote on Tue, 29 April 2014 06:49magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 25 April 2014 01:29B-17 Bomber and Miner. B-17 Bombers can't survive a minehit and can't be gated, so they're the worst bomber.
I do like the mini-bomber, but the B-17 has a few advantages:
1) It has two different slots for bombs. This means you can field your standard-lbu mixed bombing fleet without using two ship design slots.
2) It costs less per bomb than the mb. Building four mbs (to get 8 bombs) requires about 13% more iron than one b-17, just for the hull, and you also have to build four engines (instead of just two for the b-17), which adds even more to the iron cost.
3) The b-17 has a scan/elec/mech slot. Adding a fuel tank gives each b-17 a capacity of 650mg and a weight of 472kt (assuming Fuel Mizer engine), while four mbs can hold 480mg and weigh 540kt (276kt for two cherry mbs, 262kt for two lbu-74 mbs). This makes the b-17 more mobile "in the field" where fuel supply can be a challenge.
These advantages often convince me to accept the 9% loss rate of sending the b-17 through 300/500 gates. Even with that loss rate I can gate my b17s twice and still spend less iron per bomb than I would be spending for minibombers.
According to Posey's spreadsheet, B-17s are 17.2%/7.9% cheaper in iron than minibombers per bomb (no Fuel Tank/Fuel Tank), making minibombers break even after 2/1 overgates. 
(That's in the BB era, when you have your final bomber design, and assuming Mizers. If you're sticking Interspace-10s on your minibombers then they are indeed quite a bit more expensive.)
[Updated on: Tue, 29 April 2014 08:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 18 19:12:30 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
