Conventional ICBM

[Mr.Bananza (OP)]

I've been playing the game for about a week now, and today was the first time that I realized how absolutely terrible the ICBM missiles that you start off with are.  (on an earth start that is)

So I got to ask. . .  When did you guys first realize that these first few technologies that you start off with are atrocious? Is a whole week bad, or has someone actually used the technology for their ships before they realized that they sucked?

[Erik L]

I've been playing the game for about a week now, and today was the first time that I realized how absolutely terrible the ICBM missiles that you start off with are.  (on an earth start that is)

So I got to ask. . .  When did you guys first realize that these first few technologies that you start off with are atrocious? Is a whole week bad, or has someone actually used the technology for their ships before they realized that they sucked?

But when all you have is Nuclear Pulse Engines, and a big galaxy to explore; you build NPE powered ships Of course you also upgrade them as fast as you can.

[MarcAFK]

ICBMs are completely useless except for launching probes into deep space, kinda like real life actually. But the other starting techs I have some respect for since they're what keep your empire running during the ever important adolescent years.
And since the engine redesign of v6 I have even occasionally used conventional engines for certain applications, mostly probes, but even stopgap pre nuclear-thermal cargo ships and ICBM mk II missile platforms have been seen in my games.

[Jorgen_CAB]

There is nothing that prevents you from designing newer missiles to put into these ICBM bases to make them at least decent when you have some better technology. I usually design some MIRV missiles with size 6-8 missiles as an example.

Later on I upgrade the bases to newer designs or just scrap them when I think they served long enough.

[Starmantle]

There is nothing that prevents you from designing newer missiles to put into these ICBM bases to make them at least decent when you have some better technology. I usually design some MIRV missiles with size 6-8 missiles as an example.

Later on I upgrade the bases to newer designs or just scrap them when I think they served long enough.

First of all, I don't play conventional starts, but I *love* the ideas put forth by Marc and Jorgen.  Particularly for role-playing value, that's awesome.

And as for Mr.Bananza's original question... I'd have to say my early missiles and especially anti-missiles.  When you realize that your anti-missiles can't catch enemy anti-ship missiles... well, that's a crappy day. 

Past that, I'd agree with Erik.  If I have a ship with old launchers, armor, or guns, it matters.  But when they have old engines... that really makes them feel antiquated and makes me struggle to fit them into fleet doctrine.  And those refits are so expensive. 

[gharad]

I started playing while reading the tutorial and have been continuing the game since then.  Initial contact was with some highly advanced ships whom I suspect may be precursor guardians.  That didn't give me much of a meterstick with which to evaluate the effectiveness of my ships, other than that they were very, very inferior.

Much later contact was established with an initially neutral species which eventually turned hostile and has since Bloody Valentine, has turned into an ongoing war for the past 6 years.  From that I learned many things:

• Engines: missiles don't care about efficiency at all.  Military drives are a delicate balancing out between guzzling fuel and granting the speed you need.  Sources of fuel become extremely important as your fleet expands!!!
• I also eventually found out that the speed of a missile greatly affects its hit chance. . . prior to then, I had designed my countermissiles with lower speed than my capital ship missiles.
• Devoting a certain percentage of a ships tonnage to engines, then developing a single engine of the appropriate size (where possible) tends to be more fuel-efficient than a one-size-fits-all-tonnage engine.
• Sensors: having missiles which outrange your enemies doesn't help when their gunboats cannot be targeted by your regular fire control.  In those situations, basic countermissile fire control can be a life-saver but negates your range advantage.
• Magazines: a battle can take quite a few missiles before anything gets knocked out.  It's important to have sufficient magazine storage to last a while.
• New missile designs can be put into production and used much, much more quickly than new ship designs.
• Retooling shipyards can take a long time! It might be better to expand the number of shipyards instead.

[Narmio]

Good points all, gharad, but be a little careful of a one-engine design philosophy for warships - one engine makes a single point of failure!  I use a two-engine design (custom sized, just like you suggest) for any ship expected to see combat, and a one-engine design for everything else. 

Crawling away from battle at half speed is not great, but it's an awful lot better than being utterly dead in the water after a single lucky missile hit.