Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: October 25, 2010, 01:51:31 PM »

Well, if the beamfirecontrol just tracks 20k, you simply need four times as many guns.
You only know whats the better solution if you know how long you have to fight.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: October 25, 2010, 06:44:11 AM »

Yes you have to pay for munitions when using missiles.  Most players don't have the tech base for beam fire controls that track in the 80k/kps range either.  It's segnificantly easier to ramp up missiles that can.  It's all a trade someplace.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: October 23, 2010, 11:49:00 AM »

Yeh, but then you have to pay for them. And you might run out of ammo.
Which is the problem of all missiles, true.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: October 23, 2010, 08:44:40 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on October 22, 2010, 08:02:03 AM
Lasers are a good suggestion. Unlike most point defence weapons, which are required to have a high tracking speed and a high rate of fire and therefore usually have low damage, anti-PT weapons need high tracking speed and high damage and therefore usually have relatively low rates of fire.

Steve

Then short ranged, high warhead strength, fast missiles should work better.  At least from the ships mass expendature vs beam firecontrol suites and turrets.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 22, 2010, 08:02:03 AM »

Quote from: UnLimiTeD on October 22, 2010, 07:56:57 AM
Best idea in that case is probably to use Laser Turrets.
Higher damage, and Plasma Torpedoes seem to have a compareably slow firerate.

Lasers are a good suggestion. Unlike most point defence weapons, which are required to have a high tracking speed and a high rate of fire and therefore usually have low damage, anti-PT weapons need high tracking speed and high damage and therefore usually have relatively low rates of fire.

Steve
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: October 22, 2010, 07:56:57 AM »

Best idea in that case is probably to use Laser Turrets.
Higher damage, and Plasma Torpedoes seem to have a compareably slow firerate.
Or, once your high enough tech, build a ship with 500 shield generators and ignore them while you attack.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 22, 2010, 06:49:01 AM »

Quote from: Vanigo on October 20, 2010, 12:02:32 PM
Do mesons ignore this like they do regular armor?

No, plasma torps are just hard to destroy. They aren't armoured in the same sense as missiles.

Steve
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: October 20, 2010, 01:34:29 PM »

I think they do, but ask Steve.
Worth a try if you ask me.
Though swarming with Microwave fighters might still be the solution of choice ;)
Cap them!
Posted by: Vanigo
« on: October 20, 2010, 12:02:32 PM »

Do mesons ignore this like they do regular armor?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 20, 2010, 11:48:33 AM »

Yes, a larger AAM warhead will increase the chance of destroying a plasma torpedo. Plasma Torpedoes have 'missile armour' equal to their current warhead strength -1.

Steve
Posted by: ndkid
« on: October 20, 2010, 11:40:11 AM »

With a good ol' conventional start, I'm 100 years in, and still haven't developed a system (short of massive swarming) to deal with the invaders. Specifically of problem is intercepting their plasma torpedoes. I seem to be able to intercept them, but when I do, with 4:1 AMM that have a 90-odd-percent hit rate, a number of them fail to detonate the warhead.

What's the solution? Will a larger warhead on my AMM increase the chance of detonating the target's warhead? Is this some hidden result of the target missile having ECM?