Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Thoughts on weapon balance
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance Thu, 09 June 2016 20:35 Go to previous messageGo to previous 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

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


Current Time: Sun May 12 23:08:40 EDT 2024