Author Topic: Weapons: decisions and usefulness  (Read 5492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Din182

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • D
  • Posts: 145
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2011, 05:30:16 PM »
True, some weapons have equal damage across all ranges.  But ignoring associated beam fire control range is a mistake since it dictates engagement ranges and hit probability. 

You will have the same fire control for both lasers and and particle beams, and if the FC is longer range than the weapons, then, the fire control range doesn't matter when comparing the range of the weapons. And you usually want a longer range FC.
Invader Fleet #13090 has notified Fleet Command that it intendeds to Unload Trade Goods at Earth!
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2011, 08:59:03 AM »
You will have the same fire control for both lasers and and particle beams, and if the FC is longer range than the weapons, then, the fire control range doesn't matter when comparing the range of the weapons. And you usually want a longer range FC.

Not neccessarily.  You may choose a different set of BFC options depending on hs usage and/or hit probability in combination with weapons choice and tactical role for the weapons system. 
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline scoopdjm (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 69
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2011, 02:55:36 PM »
AAAAARGH!!! ok so I've got some warships up now and with missile launchers but they won't load missiles!!! When I tell them to load missiles from earth, it says they've completed the order but when I look at them nothing is picked up.  Do I need a cargo bay or cargo handling system on my ships?
 

Offline sublight

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Captain
  • *
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2011, 03:10:08 PM »
Remember the class designer window? I believe there is a tab in there marked 'ordinances' where you have to specify what the preferred missile load out is.  If the ship still has the default preferred missile load of 'nothing,' then nothing is all it will load.
 

Offline Girlinhat

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2011, 05:08:14 PM »
Happened to me too, and the same applies to colliers.  You need to set their class's preferred loadout, and they'll load that amount of that ammo when ordered to reload anywhere.  This change CAN be made after construction, no need for any refits or anything.
 

Offline scoopdjm (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 69
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2011, 05:20:10 PM »
right, got it all working.   
now I just have to find away to block the blockade the npr has enforced on sol :(


EDIT: oh, while im at it: do fighters need fuel tanks?
 

Offline HaliRyan

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 232
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2011, 05:23:14 PM »
Yes, and you'll want to remember to put lots of extra fuel on any carrier you build so they can make multiple sorties.
 

Offline scoopdjm (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 69
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2011, 05:37:22 PM »
I almost forgot! good thing I didn't send my ligt carrier into the field yet.  I'll have to redesign it and retool :(
 

Offline Girlinhat

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2011, 09:04:24 PM »
There's the Fuel Storage - Tiny specifically made for fighters (and fine-tuning your tonnage) that is pretty much tailor-made for fighter craft.  Fighter engines also burn through a LOT of fuel, so your mothership should be a tanker to support their hungry drives.
 

Offline scoopdjm (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 69
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2011, 09:13:07 PM »
Yeah, I just finished a bunch of xyzcomponent-tiny stuff.  I've update all of my fighters to the mk.  III version.

Also, do I need 'beam fire control' on fighters that hve laser weapons? If so how small should it be cause it's forcin my fighters to about 310-320 tons right now :/

Secondly, what is the best fighter weapon?

also as an unrelated side note: I got TANKED on Neutronium.  Do I just start surveying asteroids like mad? or is there a more specific way to find it? I've only got one asteroid that's just produced 1000 tons of the stuff but thats barely enough to get me through my current ship yard expansion.
 

Offline Yonder

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Y
  • Posts: 278
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2011, 11:24:44 PM »
Also, do I need 'beam fire control' on fighters that hve laser weapons? If so how small should it be cause it's forcin my fighters to about 310-320 tons right now :/
You do indeed, and that will drive the mass for your fighter in the early-to-mid tech levels.

Quote
Secondly, what is the best fighter weapon?
Most people would probably say that the missile is the best all around weapon, and I'm inclined to agree. Fighters are often just used as a reusable first stage to get your missiles within 15-20m km. (Make sure you are using box launchers).

Beam weapons are a risky thing to put on offensive fighters, you are probably going to take a lot of casualties from them, and it's going to get expensive. While fighters can sneak in close in relative terms, that doesn't really apply to beam range. At that point the enemy missile defense sensors will most definitely spot you. And while fighters are faster and harder to hit than normal ships, not so much compared to those missiles those defenses are designed to shoot down.

Now there is one hope, your fighters beams may outrange your opponents missile defense beams, but if your enemy is using AMMs they'll have plenty of reach.

That said, if you are going with beam weapons, an old standby is Lasers, they have a techline similar to missiles which shrinks the turret while increasing the firing time. Overall damage is drastically reduced when you do that, but you can get enormous penetration from a weapon like that, which can end up doing more real damage. Mesons are also used, the idea being that you already have to be close, why not get a little closer and ignore armor.

It's also tempting to put the weapons on fighters which can't be put on turrets, since there is no need for a turret on a fighter. This actually works out decently well for the Plasma Corranade, but increased tech on the Plasma Beam only gives options for more damaging larger weapons, the small ones stay as weak as they ever were, so there is no room to grow.

As far as railguns go, they aren't worthwhile for a fighter hunting larger ships, but they'd work well for an interceptor, as would non-minituarized lasers. Coil guns would also be worth looking into. They don't need reactors, which is nice on a ship were every ton counts.

Quote
also as an unrelated side note: I got TANKED on Neutronium.  Do I just start surveying asteroids like mad? or is there a more specific way to find it? I've only got one asteroid that's just produced 1000 tons of the stuff but thats barely enough to get me through my current ship yard expansion.

Survey the Comets first, since they have tons of minerals, then go on to Asteroids, Moons, and planets. Make sure you set up Geological Survey teams at Earth and the other Planets and Moons you set up on. They can find lots more mineral deposits.
 

Offline Ashery

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 91
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2011, 02:50:26 AM »
My thoughts re:fighters:

I consider there to be three real roles that a fighter can fill: Missile fighters, beam frontliners, and anti-missile interceptors.

Interceptors are still in the theoretical stage (Yes, still, I've been playing other games recently) and are all about maximizing speed at the cost of, well, everything else. Using the 0.6HS GC, you should be able to get the interceptor in under 150tons in the early/mid game transition, and down around/below 110 towards the end. Yes, it's true that, if you're dealing with missiles that are faster than the interceptors, they will be nothing more than glorified PD platforms that are less effective than their fleet based counterparts, but, when their speed matches that of the missiles, they excel in dealing with the over-saturation missile strategy that counters fleet based PD. This is pretty much the only potential design for an interceptor, as anything else will weigh too much to obtain the necessary speed. Hell, you're pushing the size "limit" just with the extra 0.1HS on the 0.6HS GC.

Frontliners are what you'd typically imagine for beam fighters. Mesons are fantastic here as they do a fixed amount of damage, whereas all other weapons benefit significantly from increased weapon size (15cm is about the size limit for fighters). However, if you're using beam fighters in conjunction with missiles, there's really no reason to use mesons as your opponent's armor will already be damaged significantly. *However* one thing I will strongly recommend is that frontliners should either have several layers of armor, or, even better, one or two shield modules. This is one of the few areas where I'd recommend shields over armor (Save for all but the very early game, but at that point fighters are already out of the question due to tech requirements) for two reasons: I'm under the impression that fighters cannot have their armor repaired, so if a fighter takes a few hits but survives, it will forever be a cripple, and fighters have an incredibly small armor width (Most fighters will be four or smaller, iirc), so there's a fairly high chance for internal damage to occur after only a couple AMM/PD hits to armor. A full sized ship could survive such a leak, but any internal damage will likely result in the fighter goin' boom.

As far as strategy goes for the frontliners, I'm inclined to just let'em float outside their carrier and act as additional PD until my fleet takes fire from enemy beam weapons. At that point, it shouldn't take long for'em to close the last remaining gap and quickly shred the enemy fleet.

I can't really give much advice on missile fighters as my current game is beam only (Well, and sensor buoys), but they come off as being a bit more flexible depending on the role you want them to fill.

Oh, one thing that should be mentioned, if you're aiming to use fighters to "turret" weapons that otherwise wouldn't fit in one, about the only weapon I'd consider doing that for is the rail gun during the early/mid game when the RG has an RoF advantage over the GC. I don't consider carronades to be viable outside of the early game, so those are out (A 15cm carronade is only remotely useful until you've acquired 15cm lasers). Particle beams are tempting due to their "constant" range, but you get more bang for your HS buck out of the larger variants. Fighters do, however, have an easier time obtaining a speed advantage for sniping ships. However, to keep up the internal debate, you'll be needing a 4HS BFC in order to take advantage of the range, which puts you well over the size limit if you want to maintain decent speeds (Hell, I'm thinking you'd be lucky to fit the smallest particle cannon on *any* fighter, let alone a viable one). I'm sure microwaves could be used effectively on fighters, but I've yet to come up with such a strategy (I was originally going for a microwave + meson mix, but decided to go pure mesons).

On the neutronium note, I was forced to hold off on expanding/building more shipyards early on for the same reason. Fortunately my shortage was taken care of once I established my first manned mining colony outside Sol that has several million at 0.5 accessibility. Not perfect, sure, but it's more than enough to take care of all the neutronium I can use when you take into account my current duranium production.
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2011, 02:59:50 AM »
Yes, it's true that, if you're dealing with missiles that are faster than the interceptors, they will be nothing more than glorified PD platforms that are less effective than their fleet based counterparts, but, when their speed matches that of the missiles, they excel in dealing with the over-saturation missile strategy that counters fleet based PD.
50 tons in 110 tons fighter is 50% engines. 

Fighter engines have less thrust to mass ratio than missiles. 
Ergo, fighters are never going to be as fast as missiles. 

FYI, my standard ASM design is WH4 regardless of tech.  Which then results in an ever increasing engine portion, useful for broaching PD.  By mid-game, ASMs are faster than AMMs, and by end-game, even AMM hit rates are <15%. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 03:02:23 AM by jseah »
 

Offline scoopdjm (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 69
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2011, 09:00:57 AM »
OK, so I've now solved my mineral problems and got like 12 million excess now :) back to my fleets, I know how to load fighters and I've searched for using them in combat. But could some give me an indepth instruction on how to use squadrons?

EDIT: btw, if I subsidize a small shipping line will it buy some ships? also, do you need to have a ship design in dry dock for it to able to be built by civvies
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 09:04:30 AM by scoopdjm »
 

Offline Yonder

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Y
  • Posts: 278
Re: Weapons: decisions and usefulness
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2011, 09:31:58 AM »
EDIT: btw, if I subsidize a small shipping line will it buy some ships? also, do you need to have a ship design in dry dock for it to able to be built by civvies

It will. You don't need to have it in dry dock, civvies have their own "invisible" shipyards.