Lets talk guns

[Tcby]

Perhaps it is time to resurrect this thread. What changes can be made with the new tools to improve weapon balance? I understand that this is also being discussed to some extend in the DWU Balance Mod, but I think there is some benefit to brainstorming the topic without being tied to the vision of any particular person.

[Timotheus]

Torps are a bit OP as of now.

They should be slowed down and be more easily intercepted/shot down by point defense.

They should have small area effect explosion, so that when PD shoots them down they explode and do some damage to whatever's nearby.

Torps range should be very much shorter than missiles.


Missiles are fine as is.


But in my experience fighters rule - to the point that when designing my warships I stick a fighter bay into each and (a warship needs a weapon, gaem sez) fine, stick 1 maxos blaster or whatever on it.

Note that you DO NOT NEED carriers to effectively have carriers in game, and a fleet of 10 rather smallish warships with 1 long range lazor or maxos blasta but each having a fighter bay is OP as [censored].

When you have both torps and fighters, look out, universe.

Sticking fighter bays into non-carrier type warships should not be allowed by game, needs a hard lock - otherwise way too easy.

[ldog]

ORIGINAL: Timotheus

Torps are a bit OP as of now.

They should be slowed down and be more easily intercepted/shot down by point defense.

They should have small area effect explosion, so that when PD shoots them down they explode and do some damage to whatever's nearby.

Torps range should be very much shorter than missiles.


Missiles are fine as is.


But in my experience fighters rule - to the point that when designing my warships I stick a fighter bay into each and (a warship needs a weapon, gaem sez) fine, stick 1 maxos blaster or whatever on it.

Note that you DO NOT NEED carriers to effectively have carriers in game, and a fleet of 10 rather smallish warships with 1 long range lazor or maxos blasta but each having a fighter bay is OP as [censored].

When you have both torps and fighters, look out, universe.

Sticking fighter bays into non-carrier type warships should not be allowed by game, needs a hard lock - otherwise way too easy.

I'd say it's less torps are OP than that late tech missiles have nothing to recommend them over torps. Beam weapons are still plenty useful.

Point defense only works against fighters in DW. They shouldn't work against torps since they are energy weapons. They should work against missiles but that would make missiles even more useless, so it is possibly that way for game balance.

I don't think fighters are OP either, it is more a matter that the AI designs don't have enough PD & fighters themselves. No matter what though the player is going to be able to design better ships than the AI since the AI works from more or less fixed designs.

The rail guns seem to suck completely, but then I haven't really given them much chance. What few I've had were on derelict ships and I have not been impressed.

Area weapons are always situational and seem more useful for flavor than from an efficiency standpoint, but then I know there are people around here who tailor their strategy around them to great effect.

ORIGINAL: CyclopsSlayer

ORIGINAL: Deathball

Has anyone done some calculations on dps/size in regards to energy consumption? After all, torpedoes/phasers have considerably higher energy requirements so it would be interesting to see how their dps/size holds up if you factor in reactor size.

I didn't factor in energy as endgame reactors make it trivial.

The equivalent endgame reactor;

Advanced Hyper Fusion Reactor
Size - 16
Energy Output - 260
Fuel per 1000 energy - 2.52 (Hydrogen)

So using Torpedoes, a single reactor will power 4 Torps, that raises the effective size of the Torp launcher from 12 -> 16. A single Fuel Cell will when full provide sufficient fuel to fire 744 Torpedoes, or sufficient fuel for 90 seconds of continuous fire for 4 launchers.

Effective Weapon Size factoring in Energy needed for continuous fire; (rounded up to full spaces)
Titan Beams - Sz 8
Phaser - Sz 11
Torpedo - Sz 16
Missile - Sz 15
Mass Driver - Sz 19

From your posts and a quick look at your spreadsheet, it would seem you are not taking DPS into account.
DPS isn't the be all end all but it does make apples to apples comparisons easier.

[Aeson]

Has anyone done some calculations on dps/size in regards to energy consumption? After all, torpedoes/phasers have considerably higher energy requirements so it would be interesting to see how their dps/size holds up if you factor in reactor size.

As a matter of fact, yes. This was originally posted in the Guide to Armor thread over in the War Room, but here are the relevant bits for what you're asking:

Code: Select all

 Alpha Strike Damage
 Range:                      000    100    200    300    400    500
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Titan Beam (alpha)          4.24   3.65   3.07   2.48   1.90   1.32
 Titan Beam (cont.)          4.01   3.46   2.90   2.35   1.80   1.24
 Phaser Lance (alpha)        2.97   2.97   2.97   2.97   2.97   2.97
 Phaser Lance (cont.)        1.62   1.62   1.62   1.62   1.62   1.62
 Mix                         3.73   3.38   3.02   2.66   2.30   1.95
 
 
 Continuous DPS
 Range:                  000    100    200    300    400    500
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Titan Beam (cont.)      2.86   2.47   2.07   1.68   1.28   0.89
 Titan Beam (alpha)      2.07   1.79   1.50   1.21   0.93   0.64
 Phaser Lance (cont.)    0.77   0.77   0.77   0.77   0.77   0.77
 Phaser Lance (alpha)    0.71   0.71   0.71   0.71   0.71   0.71
 Mix                     2.12   1.87   1.61   1.36   1.10   0.85
 
 
 Weapon Set Sizes
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Titan Beam (alpha)   Titan Beam (cont.)   Phaser Lance (alpha)   Phaser Lance (cont.)   Mix
 Size:           130                  94                    97                    178             112
 

Mix is 10 Titan Beams and 4 Phaser Lances. Titan (alpha) is 19 Titan Beams, Titan (cont.) is 13 Titan Beams, Phaser (cont.) is 18 Phaser Lances, Phaser (alpha) is 9 Phaser Lances. Done assuming maximum research in Titan Beams, Phaser Lances, and Hyperfusion Reactors, and assumes that you've used exactly 1 HyperFusion Reactor to support every such set of weapons. Note that this may vary a bit depending on how many reactors you actually carry on a real design; these numbers assume that you lose any 'extra' capacity from the reactors supporting static/engine/shield loads and the fact that reactors rarely support exactly N weapons.

For the curious, the maximum number of supportable Titan Beams or Phaser Lances for various reactors is given below. The output limit gives you the maximum number of weapons you can fire continuously, while the storage limit gives you the maximum number of weapons you can fire simultaneously, say at the start of the engagement.

Code: Select all

 Weapon               Quantum Reactor 3           Fusion 3               HyperFusion 3
          Limit by:  output     storage      output     storage       output      storage
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Phaser Lance 3       12.6       5.7          8.7         4.5          18.8         9.3
 Titan Beam 3          8.8       11.8         6.0         9.3          13.0         19.3

[pycco]

lol, love these types of threads.

a set of weapons is only scratching the surface, there are a lot of factors energy use,defenses,speed,thrusters,size of ship,what is required of ship design,what you are fighting,cost,upkeep,total tech cost,resources need per component. all of these play a role in what makes a weapon good. "good" is defined by what is "bad".

love your graphs though very informative.

[ldog]

Interesting chart Aeson.
Does it take into account the difference in phaser vs armor as opposed to the titan? (I'm guessing not)

Granted I didn't own Shadows until Universe and I haven't played in some time, but my experience has been at this point it's irrelevant since you just need to design better ships than the AI, which even if you are both maxed out on tech is easy to do. This would be more relevant if it were a multiplayer game.

So late game design choices are more about "style". You have a lot of choice on how to lay your ships out AND still be better than your opposition. Myself I like a mix of phasers, torps, fighters and the odd special weapon but lately I have been mixing phasers and beams (been not interested enough to crunch numbers like you have, but observed in play what your chart shows, that a mix is pretty effective under any conditions)

The hard choices for midgame all come down to size limits. Ships are smaller, reactors aren't putting out as much power, you need more of everything not weapons to get a given range/maneuverability/speed/defenses than you do late game. To me before size 500 is when ship design is the least forgiving.

The chart you put up in the shatterforce laser thread is far more interesting, since you calculated DPS/component size which really is the more deciding factor early to midgame.

[Aeson]

lol, love these types of threads.

I tend to agree with the sentiment of your post. The threads tend not to really produce anything terribly useful, but are frequently rather amusing.

Does it take into account the difference in phaser vs armor as opposed to the titan? (I'm guessing not)

Of course it doesn't. If it took into account the effects of armor, I'd have to answer, at minimum, the questions of "how much armor" and "what kind of armor," because if I 'accounted for armor' you really need to know what kind of armor I accounted for. If I were reading it and it said that armor had been accounted for, I'd also want to know how I factored in the armor effects - what distribution did I assume for the number of shots to break the armor? Gaussian? Uniform? Something else? For that matter, once you get into the details of figuring out the impact of armor on weapon DPS per size unit, what about the other aspects of ship design? What relative amounts of shield generators, armor, and other components did I assume? How about shield regeneration? Did I deduct that from the effective DPS of the attacking weapons? (The answer is "no," by the way.) Did I consider the impact on weapon effectiveness due to only about half the Phaser Lances for Phaser (cont.) taking part in the alpha strike? (Again, no.) Have I considered how the game allocates reactor output (e.g. will the game sacrifice cruise speed to fire more of the weapons if I put too many on the ship)? (Once again, no.)

If you want a bit of discussion about how armor factors into things, I would suggest looking into the Guide to Armor thread over in the War Room section of the forum. I would also tend to say that if you have sufficient available research, then you'd be better off using some kind of mixed Titan Beam and Phaser Lance configuration than going purely for one or the other, as the Titan Beam offers superior raw DPS per size unit at all ranges but the Phaser Lance provides superior armor-penetration. Superior raw DPS per size unit means that the Titan Beam is better at bringing down shields and destroying unarmored hulls than the Phaser Lance is, but it pays for it with its lesser armor penetration and its range-dependent performance. Exactly what an 'ideal' mix is would depend greatly on exactly what you're facing; the mix given in the mixed weapon set is just a simple energy balance trying to get an alpha strike that uses all the available stored energy and sustained fire that uses all the available reactor output, rather than some detailed analysis of 'optimal' balances of armor penetration and raw DPS.

The chart you put up in the shatterforce laser thread is far more interesting, since you calculated DPS/component size which really is the more deciding factor early to midgame.

First, those charts above are DPS per unit size - I just factored in the reactors required to power the weapons. DPS per unit size for the Titan Beam III is something like 3.5 at range 0 and something like 0.84 for the Phaser Lance III if you exclude the reactors. Second, even in the mid-game, you will most likely have enough space to include at least one reactor whose only purpose is to feed the weapons, and more isn't entirely out of the picture. As such, the results in the charts given above are similarly applicable to ship design as the chart given in the Shatterforce Laser thread; these ones just include a little of the overhead that weapons require. Theoretical DPS per size unit when excluding the reactor also doesn't change that much - a HyperFusion Reactor is only 16 size units, which is perhaps 20% of the smaller weapon sets used. The bigger difference is that Titan Beam IIIs and Phaser Lance IIIs are much more 'end-game' weapons than Shatterforce Lasers and Epsilon Torpedoes are, although I would argue that the Shatterforce Laser III, which is what the chart in the Shatterforce Laser thread is for, isn't significantly less end-game than the Phaser Lance III or any form of Titan Beam. In particular, I would generally not pick up Shatterforce Laser IIIs unless I felt a need to upgrade the weapons on existing ships without necessitating a refit, or unless I had nothing more interesting to research (such as some tech which isn't an immediate dead-end).

A more detailed analysis could include the number of fuel cells that you'd add to the design to give a reasonable estimated combat time on station, or you could do a full-blown design analysis with a mandatory base set of components which leaves X space available for weapons and supporting reactors, and currently has Y spare reactor output and Z reactor storage - after all, if you know you're aiming for a size-500 ship, and you know you want 20 cruise speed and 15 deg/s turning rate, you already know most of what you want to put into the ship, even if you haven't realized it yet. The only questions left to answer at that point are "would I rather use weapon set A or weapon set B to fill the X space that my design can give to weapons and supporting reactors, and how do I want to share this leftover space with shields and armor?" Might even only need to answer the question about weapons, if you have target shield and armor values (maybe you like having 1000 shields and 10 armor plates on your size-500 ships, or something like that). Of course, you also only "need" to answer these questions if you're looking for some kind of optimization; throwing whatever you feel like adding on generally works well enough that these kinds of optimization questions do not necessarily need answers.

The chart you put up in the shatterforce laser thread is far more interesting, since you calculated DPS/component size which really is the more deciding factor early to midgame.

Just be aware that DPS per component size can be deceptive. There's a big difference between a 2 DPS per size unit weapon that costs 5 space and uses 10 energy per shot, and a 2 DPS per size unit weapon that costs 15 space and uses 40 energy per shot, and both are much different from a 2 DPS per size unit weapon that costs 10 space and uses 20 energy per shot, and a lot of that difference comes from how the weapons interact with the reactors. That's not a side of the story that the Shatterforce Laser thread's charts touch upon to any great extent.

[unclean]

Check this out: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2686169

Get the attachment and you can see DPS/size, energy use/size, damage vs armor, all that good stuff.

Anyways, this thread needs more love for missiles. I like seeding a lot of advanced empires into my games, and if you're started wars with them early on nothing even comes close to letting you kill fleets and starbases without taking a scratch like missiles can.

Key is getting a critical mass of cheap frigates that are basically just missiles and engines duct taped together - it doesn't matter that you do crap damage when nothing can catch you, and anything that does gets instantly focus fired down anyways. Couple bulkier ships to draw fire if you get jumped helps too.

Anyways, try it out. It's one of those things that wouldn't work as well against an actual player, but the AI is utterly helpless against it.

[Spidey]

Regarding that spreadsheet, Unclean, what do you mean with "damage vs armor"? Is that simply post-reactive damage or did you go probabilistic and actually crack how many shots it takes on average on a given range to kill armor plates?

That said, the pictures make it look like nice work. I'll probably download and check it out once I'm not really tired. [:)]

[unclean]

ORIGINAL: Spidey

Regarding that spreadsheet, Unclean, what do you mean with "damage vs armor"? Is that simply post-reactive damage or did you go probabilistic and actually crack how many shots it takes on average on a given range to kill armor plates?

That said, the pictures make it look like nice work. I'll probably download and check it out once I'm not really tired. [:)]

It's the first, that's pretty much all that was known when it was made.

I'm actually reading that armor guide for the first time right now :]

[SirFinbar]

Hhhm, seems I have been researching the wrong stuff... I thought missiles would be great because of the range.

[ldog]

Thanks for the clarifications. (although I'm sorry I asked about the armor , all the reasons you listed are why any simple chart with them wouldn't be valid, but some people would still try to pull something half-assed like that)

I'll go have a look at that armor thread again, it's been a long time since I've read it.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Darkspire

ORIGINAL: DWA86

I imagine missles are really rather ineffective and the graviton weapons have too slow of a rate of fire and range?

Playing as a prewarp empire the missiles are great at the start, get them up to Concussion ASAP and there great until you get up to Shockwave on torpedo.
Gave up with Graviton when the AOE weapons were nerfed a few revisions ago because of naysayers on here due to there game inexperience and the damage it caused there friendly forces, they completely ruined the new AOE additions in Shadows and quite a large part of the game for me by constantly moaning about the damage, had they known how to use them they are a very effective, fun to watch and design with weapon. Sad to say they are all now next to useless, they used to be great fun both in use and design. Best place for them used to be mines, they could hold off small fleets on there own, now any mine with them fitted just sits there getting shot at, they do fire but not very often and with nowhere near the damage radius they had, more often than not the mine is destroyed, what's easier to replace a mine on a much needed resource sitting in a system on its own or a few ships? As long as your ships are fairly well shielded and, even better, fitted with robotic repairs the casualties were minimum.

Darkspire

Area weapons used to rock. Load up a big ship with them, and send it in ALONE to soften defenses, then when it jumps out to repair you can send in your regular fleet and finish off all the cripples. Now I don't even put em on my designs anymore.

[dannyslag]

Another new player here.

I haven't really tried area weapons and in my new game I'm trying grav, but I really don't understand the weapons.

When grav weapons say they do more damage vs smaller targets, do they mean smaller than the ship using the weapon, or just small in general?

And about AOE weapons, I see people talking about how they were nerfed so you didn't hit your own ships. Do they not do friendly fire damage or do you just mean now that they have a small range they're less likely to hit your own stuff?

I guess I'd like to try something different than the first couple games where I just went lasers and torps. I want a little variety.

[pycco]

smaller than the ship using the weapon. area weapons are not very effective now, as shark7 mentioned you could still use them but they have limited effectiveness they wont fire if there is a friendly ship in the area of effect now. which makes them not fire more often than not.
also as shark7 said that is the most effective way to use them, build a defensive ship design with area weapons send it in alone to soften the fleet's there works best with 5-6 ships sent in alone after one retreats switch it out with one at full shields or give it time to repair form the tech or at a station.

[unclean]

Does anyone really use rail guns? Missiles are way more effective offensively early on, and the uses for rails outside of that are too limited to justify going down a dead end in research. Only real use is making pirates more threatening.

Now that universe is out I'm tempted to just cut their research costs in half or something.

[niftyc]

I'm new and so I probably don't know what I'm doing, but I thought the rail gun niche was prewarp, where the rampant pirates seem to be extremely nervous about taking damage. When you are outmatched vs. pirates early in a prewarp game you can't kill them with railguns but you can sort of drive them away since some percentage always penetrates shields. The AI seems to think: "Whoa! Two non-essential components are damaged! I'd better flee! So they are a defensive early game weapon.

I've liked missiles as a early- to mid- game pre-boarding weapon. Since missiles only do half damage to armor (I think?), I put them on a ship with assault pods and give it standoff and then capture orders. The missile standoff outranges anything except other missiles, and the damage reduction means the last volley that takes the shields down doesn't also destroy the target. This ship then flies around all day picking up free pirate mining stations.

I agree that I stop using both after the early to mid game, but the early versions seem useful.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: unclean

Does anyone really use rail guns? Missiles are way more effective offensively early on, and the uses for rails outside of that are too limited to justify going down a dead end in research. Only real use is making pirates more threatening.

Now that universe is out I'm tempted to just cut their research costs in half or something.

I use them all the time because they can ignore shields. Tear straight into the meat of a ship. Rail gun armed, moderately to heavy shielded ships early really help with pirates, since it makes attacking their bases much easier.

[ShadowB]

In theory, railguns should be useful against the massive fleets of the legendary pirate clans, to throw a wrench into their frustrating hit-and-run attacks. Shield penetration could cause enough internal damage on some ships to slow them down and prevent their escape.

Anyway, my experience with weapon combinations is limited at the moment: I've been using impact blasters and shockwave torpedoes as suggested by the manual guide I read, but I really want to diversify. It's a shame some weapons are simply better than others when ideally they should all be useful in different ways.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
Anyway, my experience with weapon combinations is limited at the moment: I've been using impact blasters and shockwave torpedoes as suggested by the manual guide I read, but I really want to diversify. It's a shame some weapons are simply better than others when ideally they should all be useful in different ways.

I think you should feel free to experiment, you might be pleasantly surprised. [8D]

Some weapons do better when the ship is designed around them though, but all can be used to build a strategy around.