Author Topic: Comments thread  (Read 3297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cavgunner (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Thanked: 129 times
Comments thread
« on: April 26, 2019, 08:18:08 PM »
In order to consolidate all discussions, please feel free to comment here if you wish.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 03:41:27 PM by Cavgunner »
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 923
  • Thanked: 123 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: Comments thread
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2019, 10:43:10 AM »
Only on the second page so far, but enjoying the read and hoping it will be a long one.
 
The following users thanked this post: Cavgunner

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Terran Republic Missile Classes
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2019, 07:41:37 AM »
Wow, and I thought I was stingy with missile agility!
Are there some roleplaying reasons for that? Shuffling weight from engine to agility for a manouverability rating of 15-20 should improve accuracy considerably for a rather moderate speed loss. I can sort of understand going purely for speed for offensive missiles (harder to shoot down), but AMMs could probably be 50% more effective.
 
The following users thanked this post: Cavgunner

Offline Cavgunner (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Thanked: 129 times
Re: Re: Terran Republic Missile Classes
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2019, 04:50:48 PM »
I've used the weapons enough in the field to realize that it's a weakness.  Future iterations will correct this.
 

Offline joansam

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • j
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Re: Terran Republic Missile Classes
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2019, 05:12:01 PM »
What's your warhead tech? You may be able to cram more warhead into your Size 5s at the cost of a bit of speed, which could be offset by increased agility.   I've managed to fit a Size 4 warhead onto some short-range size 1 anti-ship missiles for fighters - kind of an interesting design that tends to overwhelm anti-missiles defenses and do decent damage. 

Also - can I ask what your rough hit stats are for AMMs and your point defenses? In the recent battle your AMMs seem to have suffered from targeting size 1 AMMs themselves - it's not fun economically to be throwing AMMs at AMMs.   Did the energy weapons fare better?
 
The following users thanked this post: Cavgunner

Offline Cavgunner (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Thanked: 129 times
Re: Re: Terran Republic Missile Classes
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2019, 08:21:45 PM »
Currently I have Fusion-Boosted Fission Warheads (8,000 RP).  Propulsion is Internal Confinement Fusion Drive with a max speed multiplier of x1.75 (x3.5 for missile engines).  My current Missile Agility tech is pretty backward at 48 agility per MSP (4,000 RP).  Most of my recent military tech gains (such as engine tech) are due almost entirely to salvage.  This has left big gaps in other areas.  Hopefully this provides some insight into why my weapons are the way they are. 

I haven't been able to test the current Flash missiles against other full size ASMs yet.  However, in the past my railguns and other PD weapons seem to have a hit rate of 30%-50% against ASMs, depending on the experience of the crew.
 

Offline joansam

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • j
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Re: Terran Republic Missile Classes
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2019, 08:39:04 AM »
Gotcha - I prioritized the max speed multiplier relatively early on, but I've also been using SM mode to try things out.  It seems like smaller missile launchers have a huge advantage over larger ones because of their faster reload times - I've been trying to stick to an all-size 1 missile plan in my playthrough so far.

So the hit rate for your PD sounds decent - would it be cost-efficient enough to replace your AMMs in the long run? I just hate the idea of throwing away AMMs if something 'renewable' would do. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Cavgunner

Offline serger

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 288
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: Comments thread
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2019, 11:55:25 PM »
Splendid contact episode! :D
 
The following users thanked this post: Cavgunner

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 731
  • Thanked: 71 times
Re: The Fighting Ships of the Terran Republic (2058 Edition)
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2019, 10:09:57 PM »
The passive sensors you have aren't actually better than the default power 1 sensors all ships have.  I have a very similar scout concept, a size 1 engine, .4 HS for fuel, and a .1 HS active sensor.  It isn't going to outrange anything with its sensors, except maybe pure beam ships, but it should be able to outrun anything if it detects a massive anti-ship sensor on its base passives.
 
The following users thanked this post: Cavgunner

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1891
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: The Fighting Ships of the Terran Republic (2058 Edition)
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2019, 01:45:11 PM »
Yeah the default sensors all ships have - but are not listed anywhere - were a nasty surprise for me as well since I used to put tiny sensors on all ships. Better to use 1HS passives or nothing at all.
 
The following users thanked this post: Cavgunner

Offline Cavgunner (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Thanked: 129 times
Re: Comments thread
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2019, 11:20:01 PM »
Does the default strength of these "invisible" sensors also increase with advances in sensor power?

 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 190
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Comments thread
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2019, 04:11:57 AM »
Does the default strength of these "invisible" sensors also increase with advances in sensor power?

No. I seem to recall Steve once mentioning that they were intended to cover the potential problem of, "Why don't they just look out a window and tell me what's going on?" so higher sensor tech isn't really relevant to the way he thinks about them.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 518 times
Re: Comments thread
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2019, 09:13:42 AM »
Does the default strength of these "invisible" sensors also increase with advances in sensor power?

No.  The 'freebie' sensors are always strength 1, regardless of your sensor tech.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1891
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: Comments thread
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2019, 11:34:49 AM »
Ah, I thought they were 0.1 HS size always and thus depend on your tech level. That means that 0.5 HS passives are still useful as, few tech levels in and if kept updated, they will have lot more range than sensitivity 1 sensor.

And C# has banished them completely anyway.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 518 times
Re: Comments thread
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2019, 02:31:49 PM »
Last I checked 1 HS or less sensors were civilian systems, and a ship with no sensors received strength-1 passives.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74