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: Charlie Beeler
« on: December 24, 2012, 07:43:47 AM »

Jorgen_CAB we were both wrong.  Though yours was much closer than mine. 

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Effective Range (in units of 10k) = Contact Dist / Weapon Range Modifier
If Effective Range < 1 Then Effective Range = 1
Weapon Damage = Round Down (Weapon Damage Output / Effective Range)

NB: Wpn Damage Output is a set amount for each focal size (3, 4, 6, 10, 16, 24, 32, 40, 64, 96, 128, 168)

Steve
Posted by: Conscript Gary
« on: December 19, 2012, 06:16:19 PM »

I remember engaging in beam combat in a nebula before version 6. My ships were armed with lasers, theirs with beams. Ranges were roughly equivalent.
Had he been able to keep his range open, he would have slaughtered me because near max range, even though he didn't hit me frequently he hit me hard, strength 6 compared to the 1s and 2s I was able to reply with when I could see through the dust. Only by coming in close was I able to apply suitable damage, against an unchanged assault.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 18, 2012, 11:09:14 AM »

I just did a test to see what damage the above laser actually did in the game and it did 2 points of damage at 200km and 4 points of damage at 100km.

At least that is how it currently works in the game.

In my opinion this is somewhat logical since otherwise there would be no point in using a Particle Beam over a laser at all. I still regard Lasers as a better overall weapon but at least Particle Beams has its niche uses.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: December 18, 2012, 09:24:05 AM »

Jorgen_CAB

That looks like an issue with the class display.  As I recall this was identified several years ago and I thought Steve had corrected it.  Lasers are supposed to have a Proportional damage regression across the full range of the weapon. 

I've got a query into Steve to see what the correct damage formula is.

Something I noticed about the formula you posted.  If the range to target is less than the modifier you endup with a damage potential greater than the weapons set maximum.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 17, 2012, 12:04:40 PM »

Quote from: Charlie Beeler on December 17, 2012, 08:11:33 AM
Not sure where you drew those data points from but they are mostly incorrect.

Yes the 20cm UV lasers does 10pts at 40k/km.  But the rest of the damage/range figures are: 9pts 50-80k/km, 8pts 90-120k/km, 7pts 130-160k/km, 6pts 170-200k/km, etc.  Damage doesn't drop to 1pt until 370k/km.


I took my data directly from the game, might be wrong though as you say. But the game tells me what I wrote above or I'm just misstaken.

Here is a direct cut and paste from the game regarding range. Each step of strength versus range is 20000km.

Code: [Select]
20cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 256,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 10-4     RM 4    ROF 15        10 10 6 5 4 3 2 2 2 2
Particle Beam-4 (1)    Range 200,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 10-4    ROF 15        4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Laser Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     92 84 77 69 61 53 45 37 30 22
**EDIT**

Actually, from looking at the in game numbers damage fall of according to the following formula...

(Max damage * Range Modifier / Range in 10k km) with rounding fractions down.

This gives a 20cm UV Laser:
(10 * 4 / 5) 8 damage at 50.000 km
(10 * 4 / 10) 4 damage at 100.000 km
(10 * 4 / 15) 2 damage at 150.000 km
(10 * 4 / 20) 2 damage at 200.000 km
(10 * 4 / 15) 1 damage at 250.000 km
Posted by: draanyk
« on: December 17, 2012, 11:07:37 AM »

Quote from: Charlie Beeler on December 17, 2012, 08:11:33 AM
But that's not really a good basis replying to Academy questions. At the vary list stipulate that your reply is based on a max tech environment.

I believe I did, a couple of times. Regardless, if you're going to invest in a tech line, having a view for the end result is an important consideration, and that was the basis of my response. The reason I go with a larger focal size for lasers is that doing one point of damage at long range still has to go through shields and armor, and so has little impact on internal systems. Based on your numbers, with mesons coming in at the same size and power requirements, they'll ignore shields and armor, both on ships in an assault role, and missiles in a PD role. Hitting internal systems with every hit seems like a more efficient use of combat time than punching through shields and armor.

As for responding to academy questions, is it not reasonable for me to post my experience? Or is that only if we play the game a certain way? I'd certainly not my intention to offend others with how I play this game.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: December 17, 2012, 08:11:33 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 14, 2012, 02:03:25 PM
A 20cm UV laser deals 10 damage at 40k, 4 damage at 100k, 2 damage at 200k and 1 damage at 250k and above. The Particle beam does 4 damage from 10k - 200k range
Not sure where you drew those data points from but they are mostly incorrect.

Yes the 20cm UV lasers does 10pts at 40k/km.  But the rest of the damage/range figures are: 9pts 50-80k/km, 8pts 90-120k/km, 7pts 130-160k/km, 6pts 170-200k/km, etc.  Damage doesn't drop to 1pt until 370k/km.

Quote from: draanyk on December 14, 2012, 03:50:56 PM
Thanks for providing extra detail. I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

Since mesons only do one damage over their range, and that damage doesn't reduce with range, you don't need a large focal length. You can restrict the weapon range to 1.44Mkm, since that's the best our beam fire control can do. This gives you a smaller focal size, and therefore faster cycling and smaller size. With a laser, however, restricting it's range to 1.44Mkm brings it's damage down to 0 at that range. To maintain decent power at range, I use a larger focal size, giving slower cycling and larger size. My quad meson turrets are usually around 29HS with a 5 second cycle, while my quad laser turret comes in at something like 130HS with a 30 or 35 second cycle. I'm not positive on the numbers since I don't have a save with these techs available, but the relative sizes support my point.

In any given fleet, I'll have 3-5 point defense meson ships with a 1.44Mkm range set to area defence (each ship has around 15-25 PD meson cannons in various turret configurations). With the 5 second cycling, and again at high tech levels, I have yet to see anything get within ~800k of my fleets. Further experience may change this, but this mix has served me well so far.

First a significant stipulation, the original poster appears to be inquiring about early tech beams not high tech systems.


That being said, to achieve a usable beam range of 1.4m/km you have to use a max tech BFC. 

The smallest laser with that range is a 30cm/Soft X-Ray which actually still does 1pt and is 9hs.

The smallest meson with that range is a 30cm/focusing tech 12(max tech) tech is also 9hs.

Both are the same size and have the same power requirement of 24 and need a max tech capacitor 25 to achieve a ROF of 5.

The smallest quad turret for either is 48.96hs.


Needless to say, if your playing with max tech against AI NPR's built based on a lower player tech assumption (example: start player population of 1.2 billion nets around 300k starting research points) then you should be functionally invulnerable.  But that's not really a good basis replying to Academy questions.  At the vary list stipulate that your reply is based on a max tech environment.
Posted by: strych90
« on: December 14, 2012, 04:26:49 PM »

I have only recently started using weapons other than CIWS and missiles, and these discussions are helping me a lot in learning more about my options, so thanks guys ^^
Posted by: draanyk
« on: December 14, 2012, 03:50:56 PM »

Quote from: Charlie Beeler on December 13, 2012, 08:12:55 AM
First issue is that all beam weapons have the same hs progression with one exception, Gauss Cannons have fixed sizes.  So as long as the same focal size is selected lasers, mesons, particle beams, etc have the same size requirement.

Nor do mesons cycle faster than lasers, they have the same power requirement per focal size.  The only way to increase the ROF is to use larger capacitors and have the powerplants to feed them.  

Thanks for providing extra detail. I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

Since mesons only do one damage over their range, and that damage doesn't reduce with range, you don't need a large focal length. You can restrict the weapon range to 1.44Mkm, since that's the best our beam fire control can do. This gives you a smaller focal size, and therefore faster cycling and smaller size. With a laser, however, restricting it's range to 1.44Mkm brings it's damage down to 0 at that range. To maintain decent power at range, I use a larger focal size, giving slower cycling and larger size. My quad meson turrets are usually around 29HS with a 5 second cycle, while my quad laser turret comes in at something like 130HS with a 30 or 35 second cycle. I'm not positive on the numbers since I don't have a save with these techs available, but the relative sizes support my point.

In any given fleet, I'll have 3-5 point defense meson ships with a 1.44Mkm range set to area defence (each ship has around 15-25 PD meson cannons in various turret configurations). With the 5 second cycling, and again at high tech levels, I have yet to see anything get within ~800k of my fleets. Further experience may change this, but this mix has served me well so far.
Posted by: Conscript Gary
« on: December 14, 2012, 02:16:53 PM »

Lasers have the best armor penetration I believe, particle beams are steeper than missiles but still lsoped
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 14, 2012, 02:03:25 PM »

When it comes to which ever is best between Particle Beams and Lasers I like them booth because they both have their uses. Particle beams are quite useful because they are more flexible when designing depending on the tech levels that you have. For example, the range tech for beams does not increase the power requirement or the size of the beam, it is only the strength of the beam that influence that. On a laser the focal tech changes both range and damage.

A 20cm UV laser deals 10 damage at 40k, 4 damage at 100k, 2 damage at 200k and 1 damage at 250k and above. The Particle beam does 4 damage from 10k - 200k range

Personally I like to research both techs if I can with a preference for lasers most of the time. I put heavy lasers on slower ships and particle beams on faster ships.

The Particle beam is a very good weapon if you can keep a distance while lasers are brutal at closer ranges. I also think that Particle beams cut deeper into the armour matrix and that way also have a slight advantage over a laser beam, I'm not entirely sure exactly how the particle beam cuts through armour versus lasers. Lasers can also be problematic if you fight against a heavily shielded opponent that have lethal beam weapons at closer ranges and you need to stay at extreme range to snipe at them, shields can be very sturdy when you do low amounts of damage.

As with anything else in this game almost everything is useful to some degree. Some are overall better but not always so. Overall Lasers are better in my opinion because they can be turreted as well as used as long range area-defence and ship killers. Particle beams are more one sided.
Posted by: Mel Vixen
« on: December 14, 2012, 06:00:29 AM »

If you need a strong PD role i would go with railguns. The multiple shots (4) give them a edge in PD because the chance to hit something (per salvo) is higher. Initialy i use a Flying brick with 10 Rails for area defence and two gaus-turrets for final PD.
Posted by: SteelChicken
« on: December 13, 2012, 10:52:43 AM »

Quote from: Jumpp on December 13, 2012, 10:47:16 AM
Thanks very much for these replies.  They're exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for.

"For ship killers you're still better off with missiles."

Oh, I know it.  But keeping those beasts supplied is killing me.


There are certain spoilers that like to cache supplies of missiles around small moons and such.   Steal 'em!
Posted by: Jumpp
« on: December 13, 2012, 10:47:16 AM »

Thanks very much for these replies.  They're exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for.

"For ship killers you're still better off with missiles."

Oh, I know it.  But keeping those beasts supplied is killing me.
Posted by: SteelChicken
« on: December 13, 2012, 10:28:16 AM »

It took me a while to figure out how the point defense mode stuff works.  I still haven't played with auto-missile firing yet.  (Is that area defense mode for AMM ships?)    I tried it a few times and it seemed very wasteful.  Is there a write up or FAQ about that?

As mentioned layered approaches work best.  Most ships get a CIWS.  My bigger carriers? 2 or more.   Missile Cruisers get them as well.  Ships with lots of beams? I generally use the space for other things.   If I have 3 or 4 gauss ships in a fleet, each ship could get an extra gauss turret that can be used on ALL incoming missiles instead of 3-4 CIWS that do nothing most rounds.

Layers:
CIWS - for most ships.
(what I call frigates) - small, nothing but gauss turrets, dedicated missile sweeper, all set to final fire
(what I call destroyers), larger, if early tech, some gauss turrets, long range laser for ship to ship and to whittle missiles down
(late tech destroyers), All laser.  Long range laser for anti ship and whittling missiles (area defense) and then a small faster RoF laser turrets set to final fire or close anti-ship work
Missile Cruisers, whittles down large salvos with AMM's.

If one or two missiles get through, it don't matter as most of ships carry a few shield generators.

I use mesons for PDC's only, as I find them too overpowered for ship to ship.