How is apparently everyone doing combat and winning with low tonnage ships?

[Squigles]

But shields are even BETTER if you can maintain range, especially if you use particle beams and have fast ships and can dictate the engagement.

Better against attenuated beams, yes. However, since particles rule the "I'm faster than you and can hold any range I want beam murder" bracket, I don't need the extra edge of shields to win.

Therefore I spec to deal with the threats I'm not guaranteed to crush as a matter of course, that being endless hordes of AMM's sleeting into me. In that case I really, really want the extra raw damage totals I can absorb with more armor, rather than my shields getting the long range railgun treatment and...you know...exploding.

[Jorgen_CAB]

But shields are even BETTER if you can maintain range, especially if you use particle beams and have fast ships and can dictate the engagement.

Better against attenuated beams, yes. However, since particles rule the "I'm faster than you and can hold any range I want beam murder" bracket, I don't need the extra edge of shields to win.

Therefore I spec to deal with the threats I'm not guaranteed to crush as a matter of course, that being endless hordes of AMM's sleeting into me. In that case I really, really want the extra raw damage totals I can absorb with more armor, rather than my shields getting the long range railgun treatment and...you know...exploding.

But the shields are still better than getting hit in the armour, right?
You known that you can back off a ship and recharge the shield and then get back in to the fight?

In my multi-faction games during pure beam combat it is quite common to use shields and then withdraw ships to longer range to recharge the shield... make long range combat eat allot of MSP and eventually ending the fight. Even the slower side can do this as the faster side either have to chase after the ship disengaging and facing the other ships at a closer range or keep distance and let the ship recharge it's shields.

I know that it is allot easier against the AI that don't use advanced tactics or formations during beam combat and have all their ship in one big ball.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

But shields are even BETTER if you can maintain range, especially if you use particle beams and have fast ships and can dictate the engagement.

Better against attenuated beams, yes. However, since particles rule the "I'm faster than you and can hold any range I want beam murder" bracket, I don't need the extra edge of shields to win.

Therefore I spec to deal with the threats I'm not guaranteed to crush as a matter of course, that being endless hordes of AMM's sleeting into me. In that case I really, really want the extra raw damage totals I can absorb with more armor, rather than my shields getting the long range railgun treatment and...you know...exploding.

But the shields are still better than getting hit in the armour, right?
You known that you can back off a ship and recharge the shield and then get back in to the fight?

In my multi-faction games during pure beam combat it is quite common to use shields and then withdraw ships to longer range to recharge the shield... make long range combat eat allot of MSP and eventually ending the fight. Even the slower side can do this as the faster side either have to chase after the ship disengaging and facing the other ships at a closer range or keep distance and let the ship recharge it's shields.

I know that it is allot easier against the AI that don't use advanced tactics or formations during beam combat and have all their ship in one big ball.

I think the point was that, since PB+speed alone mean you're gonna win the pure beam combat even without shields, going for more armor and less shields is preferred for the scenario of AMM spam. Sure, it's suboptimal for pure beam combat. But it means they have a better chance in the case where they might otherwise lose.

Basically, shields are "win more" for pure beam combat, when all that matters is "win enough." And so they prefer to make defense decisions that hopefully let them "win enough" in a wider variety of scenarios.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think the point was that, since PB+speed alone mean you're gonna win the pure beam combat even without shields, going for more armor and less shields is preferred for the scenario of AMM spam. Sure, it's suboptimal for pure beam combat. But it means they have a better chance in the case where they might otherwise lose.

Basically, shields are "win more" for pure beam combat, when all that matters is "win enough." And so they prefer to make defense decisions that hopefully let them "win enough" in a wider variety of scenarios.

To be fair I never understood the problem with AMM spam against beam ships. I really never find myself in a situation this is a problem. As my fleets usually are designed to fight either box launched or reduced launcher attacks I tend to have enough PD to deal with AMM if I'm force into a close range situation.

Aside from that I always must prioritise AMM ship with ASM first as they are usually key to defend against mass missile attacks. So when it is time for close range attack most of the AMM ships should already have been disabled along with most beam ships.

If you have a beam only fleet than PD to deal with AMM should not really be much of a problem to begin with unless you charge a fleet that is much larger than yours. If you also is faster then them you should still be able to use your shields to tank AMM spam by taking some hits and retreat out of their range... is there much reason to charge them until they just spent all their AMM against your shields.

AMM should in most situation be a none issue.

[Squigles]

To be fair I never understood the problem with AMM spam against beam ships. I really never find myself in a situation this is a problem. As my fleets usually are designed to fight either box launched or reduced launcher attacks I tend to have enough PD to deal with AMM if I'm force into a close range situation.

Aside from that I always must prioritise AMM ship with ASM first as they are usually key to defend against mass missile attacks. So when it is time for close range attack most of the AMM ships should already have been disabled along with most beam ships.

If you have a beam only fleet than PD to deal with AMM should not really be much of a problem to begin with unless you charge a fleet that is much larger than yours. If you also is faster then them you should still be able to use your shields to tank AMM spam by taking some hits and retreat out of their range... is there much reason to charge them until they just spent all their AMM against your shields.

AMM should in most situation be a none issue.

In point of fact my current game, for my faction, is beam only. No missiles to be found. Current fleet consists of 45kt carriers loaded with 400t rail fighters and 12kt “destroyers” that are armed with particle beams. As it’s a 10% research game I don’t have a lot of excess RPs to splash about, and I roleplay a parliamentary system that, amongst other things, severely limits the tonnage of my military assets (although I have a VERY robust commercial side).

The practical effect is that I am almost always fighting a superior sized force tonnage wise, and have virtually no RP to splash on gauss technology. Rail fighters can take out enough incoming ordnance to protect me from ASM’s, but AMMs  can get through.

Since I don’t allow myself to respond to the glaringly obvious 5 second forced increment screaming “incoming AMM spam” until I actually see the missiles on scopes, and the AI is rarely stupid enough to launch at maximum range, I can’t bounce in and out of range to recharge shields. Since I have no missiles I can’t take those vessels out at range...I need to weather the storm instead. Hence armor over shields, because I need a win button for multiple potential engagements, not a win more button for beam engagements where I can crush the opfor with or without.

I “could” twiddle about for a couple centuries to get all the myriad techs, but since I have “spoilers” enabled and they couldn’t give a rats behind about tech speed settings...no dallying about.

[Jorgen_CAB]

To be fair I never understood the problem with AMM spam against beam ships. I really never find myself in a situation this is a problem. As my fleets usually are designed to fight either box launched or reduced launcher attacks I tend to have enough PD to deal with AMM if I'm force into a close range situation.

Aside from that I always must prioritise AMM ship with ASM first as they are usually key to defend against mass missile attacks. So when it is time for close range attack most of the AMM ships should already have been disabled along with most beam ships.

If you have a beam only fleet than PD to deal with AMM should not really be much of a problem to begin with unless you charge a fleet that is much larger than yours. If you also is faster then them you should still be able to use your shields to tank AMM spam by taking some hits and retreat out of their range... is there much reason to charge them until they just spent all their AMM against your shields.

AMM should in most situation be a none issue.

In point of fact my current game, for my faction, is beam only. No missiles to be found. Current fleet consists of 45kt carriers loaded with 400t rail fighters and 12kt “destroyers” that are armed with particle beams. As it’s a 10% research game I don’t have a lot of excess RPs to splash about, and I roleplay a parliamentary system that, amongst other things, severely limits the tonnage of my military assets (although I have a VERY robust commercial side).

The practical effect is that I am almost always fighting a superior sized force tonnage wise, and have virtually no RP to splash on gauss technology. Rail fighters can take out enough incoming ordnance to protect me from ASM’s, but AMMs  can get through.

Since I don’t allow myself to respond to the glaringly obvious 5 second forced increment screaming “incoming AMM spam” until I actually see the missiles on scopes, and the AI is rarely stupid enough to launch at maximum range, I can’t bounce in and out of range to recharge shields. Since I have no missiles I can’t take those vessels out at range...I need to weather the storm instead. Hence armor over shields, because I need a win button for multiple potential engagements, not a win more button for beam engagements where I can crush the opfor with or without.

I “could” twiddle about for a couple centuries to get all the myriad techs, but since I have “spoilers” enabled and they couldn’t give a rats behind about tech speed settings...no dallying about.

Why not use small sensor scouts to fly under the resolution 1 radar... You can create a 5t engine and a 5t res 1 sensor to detect their missile quite far out so you don't have to weather them at close range... You could have the Destroyers fall back and recharge their shields as you can see the missile coming a mile away, you also increase the tracking bonus for the PD as well. You also could at least develop a rudimentary missile launcher and use probes to with a resolution 1 sensor as well and still stay in character with not using missiles.

Anyway.. you fight the AI so there are probably many ways to solve the problem without resorting to cheating which I don't like to do... It is odd though the AI don't just target your rail-gun fighters as that would be way smarter than your destroyers to start with, but that is AI for you...

You are just lucky you don't face large fighter or FAC launched swarms of missiles either then, that would force you to bring enough rail-gun fighters to easily deal with AMM. AI mostly use rather inefficient full size missile launchers on their designs which is to easy to defeat with the most rudimentary beam point-defence system.

[prophetical]

Last thing, engines. I have a hate-hate relationship with them. I don't rely on external calculations (so what if I lose efficiency, it's a game, not a job, I'm not computing stuff ),

You do you, but that a) isn't how the calculators work (you tell it your tech level and what size/speed you want and it tells you what to build and b) your intuition might be right, but I found that much of mine was not once I started seeing optimized designs.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

I use only missile optimizer since it lets me tinker directly with the parameters I care about, removing the abstraction layer of choosing agility etc etc
But otherwise I'm not fond of switching to external programs constantly, especially that researching engines is expensive, so I'd rather have "a few sizes fit all" rather than trying to come up with new designs for every or at least almost every ship class.

[Droll]

Yeah I don't like relying on external assistance as well. I only use aurora electrons with any regularity since that makes it easier to keep track of the whole empire

[Jorgen_CAB]

It is perfectly fine to play the game on intuition... you don't really compete with anyone and most of us use heavy role-play anyway. I have MANY restrictions in my game that is not set by the rules system or the game itself. So I play pretty sub optimal in many regards.

Optimising every system is pretty expensive research wise so not always a good idea, optimising for speed efficiency also come at the expense of fuel consumption so there are different ways to optimise an engine.

[papent]

It is perfectly fine to play the game on intuition... you don't really compete with anyone and most of us use heavy role-play anyway. I have MANY restrictions in my game that is not set by the rules system or the game itself. So I play pretty sub optimal in many regards.

This! I personally have never built a warship bigger than 20k, and in my current game 15k is going to be the hard limit for capitals.