Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:58 pm**

Icemania, can you post the conditions and outcomes of your tests?

Posted: **Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:34 pm**

Shatterforce Lasers need a buff (55%). Note the significant fire rate change at Advanced Laser Focussing.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. The numbers I see for DPS per unit size suggest that a 55% damage buff to Shatterforce Lasers would make them strictly superior to Impact Assault Blasters when first introduced and near-equal over much of the overlapped range band (better after ~200 range, worse before that point) for the first and second upgrade, and also makes the Shatterforce Laser III better than the Titan Beam II at ranges in excess of 250, despite requiring less than half the reactor power of either the Impact Assualt Blaster or Titan Beam (except when comparing the Shatterforce Laser I's power requirement, which is more like 60% of the power requirement of the Impact Assault Blaster I). Plus, the Shatterforce Laser has better range even when introduced than the Impact Assault Blaster has when fully upgraded, and its first and second upgrades have ranges comparable with the Titan Beam I and II.

Code: Select all

 Weapon        Size   Energy/Shot   Energy/s   DPS/Size at Range:
                                               0000   0050   0100   0150   0200   0250   0300   0350   0400   0450   0500   0550
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shatter I       4        20          13.3     1.17   1.08   1.00   0.92   0.83   0.75   0.67
 Impact I        5        38          22.4     1.41   1.24   1.06   0.88   0.71
 Shatter++ I     4?       20?         13.3?    1.81   1.68   1.55   1.42   1.29   1.16   1.03
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shatter II      4        20          9.1      1.02   0.97   0.91   0.85   0.80   0.74   0.68   0.63
 Impact II       5        38          23.8     2.25   2.00   1.75   1.50   1.25   1.00
 Shatter++ II    4?       20?         9.1?     1.59   1.50   1.41   1.32   1.23   1.14   1.06   0.97
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shatter III     4        20          9.1      1.36   1.31   1.25   1.19   1.14   1.08   1.02   0.97   0.91   0.85
 Impact III      5        38          23.8     2.75   2.50   2.25   2.00   1.75   1.50   1.25
 Titan I         6        28          20       2.38   2.14   1.90   1.67   1.43   1.19   0.95   0.71
 Shatter++ III   4?       20?         9.1?     2.11   2.03   1.94   1.85   1.76   1.67   1.59   1.50   1.41   1.32
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Titan II        6        28          20       2.86   2.62   2.38   2.14   1.90   1.67   1.43   1.19   0.95   0.71
 Titan III       6        28          20       3.45   3.21   2.98   2.74   2.50   2.26   2.02   1.79   1.55   1.31   1.07   0.83

Do you see why I might be just a little concerned that a straight 55% damage buff might just be a little too much? And you can already support about twice as many Shatterforce Lasers off a given amount of excess power as you can support Impact Assault Blasters, which makes the Shatterforce Laser a much more fuel-efficient weapon. Better range + much better fuel economy + at least comparable DPS over much of the shared range band = why would I use the IAB?

Phaser Lances and Phaser Cannons, the other two unrestricted weapons which fit into a similar role, have the following:

Code: Select all

 Weapon       Size    Energy/Shot    Energy/s    DPS/size   Range
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Cannon I       7         32           14.5         0.58     200
 Cannon II      7         32           13.9         0.87     220
 Cannon III     7         35           14.6         1.13     280
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Lance I        9         50           12.5         0.56     300
 Lance II       9         54           13.2         0.68     400
 Lance III      9         58           13.8         0.85     500

I'll agree that these might need some tweaking if they're supposed to be a primary general-purpose weapon rather than a specialist anti-armor weapon used in support of a general-purpose weapon. I also don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing that some species make suboptimal decisions in their ship design templates, as it makes those species different from all the other ones that went full-blasters or something like that.

Note: for anyone who does not already know, Phaser Lances and Phaser Cannons have full damage over their full range, which is why I did not break the DPS per size unit down by range. Energy per second is the amount of excess reactor output required per weapon mounted in order for that weapon to fire continuously, while energy per shot is the energy which must be stored in the reactor in order for the weapon to fire.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 12:59 am**

ORIGINAL: Aeson
Do you see why I might be just a little concerned that a straight 55% damage buff might just be a little too much?

No need to be concerned! I'm challenging the status quo for the AI Improvement Mod so the conclusions are in flux particularly the proposed % changes. Also note I'm far more focused on Rail Guns and Phaser Lances.

My analysis was similar except that I also calculated an average DPS on each row over the range of interest.

The 55% comment was focused at the following level:

Shatter II 4 20 9.1 1.02 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.80 0.74 0.68 0.63
Impact II 5 38 23.8 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00
Shatter++ II 4? 20? 9.1? 1.59 1.50 1.41 1.32 1.23 1.14 1.06 0.97

Looking at this I concluded that the Shatterforce Laser was underpowered despite the efficiency and range benefits. This was my experience in-game also. The proposed change brings the balance closer. That said, I agree with you on Shatterforce I ... I focused on Shatterforce II and wasn't expecting such a difference between levels!

ORIGINAL: Aeson
I'll agree that these might need some tweaking if they're supposed to be a primary general-purpose weapon rather than a specialist anti-armor weapon used in support of a general-purpose weapon. I also don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing that some species make suboptimal decisions in their ship design templates, as it makes those species different from all the other ones that went full-blasters or something like that.

It's also a philosophical choice for the AI Improvement Mod to have more Primary Weapons used and considered useful across the races. Some of these changes may be Mod focused rather than general.

To answer AirPower's question and to fully account for the difference in Reactors the only way I can see is to Test. For that Testing I'm using the AI Design Templates in the working version of the AI Improvement Mod. Many races use a single weapon and those designs.

I'm using an Escort and Cruiser now for the testing. An Escort is designed for Size 300 for that race. If the weapon used requires less reactors then I've already placed more weapons on the design. A Cruiser is designed for Size 800 for that race. If the weapon used requires less reactors then I've already placed more weapons on the design.

I then observe the results of 1 on 1 battles by using Game Editor. Technologies are manually selected to represent the early, mid and end game by editing Empires (or you can change Tech Level entirely). The AI will apply the design templates accordingly straight away.

Some warnings: at game setup don't chose Tech Level 7 (for example) as this changes the designs fundamentally e.g. templates will rail guns will have beams etc. The design aligns with the templates I've made well except for Capital Ships for some reason (hence using Cruisers).

I'm starting by using the default weapons designs and then I'm optimising weapon damage using components.txt and research.txt (which requires a new game to be started).

In short, this effectively enables a Battle Arena.

As part of this I've seen ways to optimise the design templates further so I'm holding on further testing until I'm happy with them.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:40 am**

Glad to see this. Tech balancing (Especially the weapons) is something that I want very badly. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the current techs changed slightly to add more flavor as well as balancing their numbers to make them a little more even. I was thinking of trying to mod the weapon techs but if others are doing this I may wait and see how these go.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:59 am**

Here are the test results following design template optimisation (i.e. including reactors etc) and inclusion of the rail gun damage change below.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
... I propose that Heavy Rail Gun damage is changed from 10, 11, 13 (for each technology in that chain) to 17, 19, 22 while Massive Rail Guns change from 16, 19 to 24, 30.

Escort 1-1 Results
Test 1: Quameno Impact Assault Blaster (I) v Sluken Heavy Rail Gun (II), Enhanced Armour, Standard Shields, Fission Reactor
Result 1: Rail Guns easily (took no damage but almost lost full shields)

Test 2: Quameno Titan Beam v Sluken Massive Rail Gun, Reactive Armour, Deucalios Shields, Damage Control, Quantum Reactor
Result 2: If Rail Gun had first strike then Rail Gun victory (with massive damage taken), if Beams had first strike then Beams victory (but struggled to penetrate armour)

Test 3: Quameno Full Tech Titan Beam v Sluken Full Tech Massive Rail Gun, Ultradense Armour, Meridium Shields, Repair Bays, HyperFusion Reactor
Result 3: The Beam ship took down the Rail Gun ship shields quickly but could not penetrate armour quickly enough with the repair bays

Cruiser 1-1 Results
Test 4: Quameno Impact Assault Blaster (I) v Sluken Heavy Rail Gun (II), Enhanced Armour, Standard Shields, Fission Reactor
Result 4: Rail Guns (took minor damage)

Test 5: Quameno Titan Beam v Sluken Massive Rail Gun, Reactive Armour, Deucalios Shields, Damage Control, Quantum Reactor
Result 5: Beams (took minor damage)

Test 6: Quameno Full Tech Titan Beam v Sluken Full Tech Massive Rail Gun, Ultradense Armour, Meridium Shields, Repair Bays, HyperFusion Reactor
Result 6: Beams easily (no damage)

This provides a solution where Rail Guns win early game but then Beams become more powerful.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 4:25 am**

With Default Phaser Lances

Escort 1-1 Results
Test 1: Quameno Impact Assault Blaster (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (I), Enhanced Armour, Standard Shields, Fission Reactor
Result 1: Beams (minor damage)

Test 2: Quameno Titan Beam (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (II), Reactive Armour, Deucalios Shields, Damage Control, Quantum Reactor
Result 2: Beams (no damage)

Test 3: Quameno Full Tech Titan Beam v Ikkuro Full Tech Phaser Lance, Ultradense Armour, Meridium Shields, Repair Bays, HyperFusion Reactor
Result 3: Stalemate - The Beam ship took down the Phaser ship shields, but the Beam ship could not penetrate armour quickly enough. The Phase ship took down the Beam ship shields and it ended in a stalemate as the Phaser ship could not penetrate armour quickly enough either.

Cruiser 1-1 Results
Test 4: Quameno Impact Assault Blaster (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (I), Enhanced Armour, Standard Shields, Fission Reactor
Result 4: Beams (minor damage)

Test 5: Quameno Titan Beam (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (II), Reactive Armour, Deucalios Shields, Damage Control, Quantum Reactor
Result 5: Beams (no damage)

Test 6: Quameno Full Tech Titan Beam v Ikkuro Full Tech Phaser Lance, Ultradense Armour, Meridium Shields, Repair Bays, HyperFusion Reactor
Result 6: Beams (no damage)

With Phaser Lances damage changed from 20,25,32 to 24,30,38:

Escort 1-1 Results
Test 7: Quameno Impact Assault Blaster (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (I), Enhanced Armour, Standard Shields, Fission Reactor
Result 7: Phasers (minor damage)

Test 8: Quameno Titan Beam (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (II), Reactive Armour, Deucalios Shields, Damage Control, Quantum Reactor
Result 8: Beams (minor damage)

Test 9: Quameno Full Tech Titan Beam v Ikkuro Full Tech Phaser Lance, Ultradense Armour, Meridium Shields, Repair Bays, HyperFusion Reactor
Result 9: Stalemate - The Beam ship took down the Phaser ship shields, but the Beam ship could not penetrate armour quickly enough. The Phase ship took down the Beam ship shields and it ended in a stalemate as the Phaser ship could not penetrate armour quickly enough either.

Cruiser 1-1 Results
Test 10: Quameno Impact Assault Blaster (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (I), Enhanced Armour, Standard Shields, Fission Reactor
Result 10: Beams (moderate damage)

Test 11: Quameno Titan Beam (II) v Ikkuro Phaser Lance (II), Reactive Armour, Deucalios Shields, Damage Control, Quantum Reactor
Result 11: Phasers (moderate damage)

Test 12: Quameno Full Tech Titan Beam v Ikkuro Full Tech Phaser Lance, Ultradense Armour, Meridium Shields, Repair Bays, HyperFusion Reactor
Result 12: Beams (minor damage)

This provides a more interesting mix.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:52 am**

Similar testing completed for Torpedoes v Missiles. As expected Missiles were superior early game. Mid-game it was a mix depending on situation. End-game Torpedoes were superior but Missiles still did some damage. Looks good and will update the OP accordingly.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:28 am**

ORIGINAL: Aeson
Do you see why I might be just a little concerned that a straight 55% damage buff might just be a little too much?

You were quite right.

I just did some Battle Arena tests and have designed ships using the Shatterforce Laser and Impact Assault Blaster to be the exact same size. As expected due to the energy benefits I've added a lot more Shatterforce Lasers to those designs (particularly when only weak Reactor technology is available). The winner depended on Armour and Reactor technology levels i.e. when weak it favoured the Shatterforce Laser and when stronger it favoured the Impact Assault Blaster.

The only limitation is the AI ship design templates. They use a fixed number of weapons for each ship class so they do not take advantage of the lower energy requirements. As a result I'm thinking the AI Research Orders in the AI Improvement Mod should focus first on Impact Assault Blasters.

When you read this, note there are some changes in the OP to reflect other Battle Arena tests. Your views on other topics?

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 8:55 am**

ORIGINAL: Airpower
It seems to me that torpedo weapons are the best weapon choice in pretty much every circumstance. They are ideal for long-range kiting, harassment, and star base siege, but are also extremely effective at short ranges. I know their overall DPS is lower than beam weapons at short ranges, but their higher damage-per-shot gives them better armor penetration characteristics. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I can't think of any reason to use shorter-ranged weapons over torpedoes...

I did some tests in the Battle Arena for Titan Beams v Plasma Torpedoes (each ship optimised for a particular size with that weapon type as the focus).

In the first test the ships were configured with the AI Default i.e. "Standoff" for Stronger Opponents, "All Weapons" for Weaker Opponents. The result was as predicted. As you can see below the Titan Beam ship did not stay close to it's opponent despite being evenly matched.

In the second test I redesigned the Titan Beam Ship with "Point Blank" for both Weaker and Stronger Opponents. The result was the complete opposite.

I've asked whether it's possible to configure this so that the AI can select the strategy most appropriate to their Primary Weapon type for the AI Improvement Mod.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:19 am**

This test involved Cruisers armed with ultimate Plasma Torpedoes and ultimate Shaktur Firestorm.

At default damage, Plasma Torpedoes always win even when the ships start the battle right next to each other, which really should favour the Shaktur Firestorm (see image below).

When ultimate Shaktur Firestorm damage was increased from 62 to 74, Shaktur Firestorm won when the battle starts at close range, and Plasma Torpedoes won otherwise, providing an improved balance.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:36 am**

ORIGINAL: Aeson
I also don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing that some species make suboptimal decisions in their ship design templates, as it makes those species different from all the other ones that went full-blasters or something like that.

At the moment about half of the races use beams and two-thirds use torpedoes. In the AI Improvement Mod I'm hoping to provide more of a mix amongst the races. At the moment the plan is for about a quarter of the races to use Beams and a quarter will use Torpedoes while the other races will focus on a mix of the rest. I'm also testing the idea of some races focusing on Fighters.

So when playing you will then need to consider how to counter that particular AI weapon type because their ships will be filled with them and their research will target them. I've never bothered with counters when playing Distant Worlds so far. And in addition the allies of your enemies will often be focusing on entirely different weapons ...

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:08 pm**

When you read this, note there are some changes in the OP to reflect other Battle Arena tests. Your views on other topics?

Regarding your recently-redacted proposed buff to Pulse Wave Cannons, I tend to feel that the Pulse Wave Cannon is more directly comparable to the Shatterforce Laser than to the Titan Beam, due to both its location in the tech tree (including upgrades) and its range and DPS profile. That said, comparing the Pulse Wave III to the Titan Beam II, it looks like the Pulse Wave Cannon is superior in anything other than perhaps its armor penetration capability - better DPS over the entire range band, lower energy requirements (both per shot and per second), and less of a range penalty, in exchange for just barely less base shot damage (and the two weapons should have equal per-shot damage at 200 range, which means that beyond that point the Pulse Wave Cannon III ought to have superior armor penetration to the Titan Beam II, on top of its other superior statistics). The Titan Beam III is the first blaster that looks strictly superior to the Pulse Wave III, but the Titan Beam III requires significantly more research to get than the Pulse Wave Cannon III (even the Titan Beam II requires significantly more research than the Pulse Wave II, for that matter).

Pulse Wave Is look to be superior to Shatterforce Is and IAB Is in every way except their energy cost, having superior DPS and per-shot damage than either out to 300 range (at which point the Pulse Wave I and Shatterforce I have equal per-shot damage, and no more than 20 range left before they can't fire anymore). Pulse Wave IIs also seem to be superior to the IAB II and Shatterforce II, with superior per-shot damage to the IAB II at ranges greater than 100 and superior DPS to either, and the Shatterforce II's per shot damage never exceeds the Pulse Wave II's at any range (aside from the 370 to 380 range band where the Shatterforce can hit the target but the Pulse Wave cannot). Pulse Wave IIs also look to be superior to Titan Beam Is in every way except per-shot damage at ranges less than 300, and strictly superior beyond that range.

As a result, on paper it looks like the Pulse Wave doesn't really need a buff in comparison to the weapons that fit in the same range band at any stage in the game, unless it's not considered fine for the much more research-expensive Titan Beam III to be a somewhat better weapon. In my opinion, it looks like these are in a decent spot.

As for what you've got in the original post at the moment: I'm not sure how I feel about boosting the Shaktur FireStorm. Aside from the Massive Rail Gun, which is a fairly crappy weapon, it's the only weapon in the game that provides both bombardment capability and ship-to-ship combat capability, and unlike the Massive Rail Gun, it's already a worthwhile weapon in either role. The Plasma Thunderbolt III is already much more expensive in research to obtain, requiring one generation-2, one generation-3 two generation-4 and two generation-5 techs as well as one generation-6, one generation-7, and one generation-8 tech, as opposed to the Shaktur FireStorm III's requirements of one tech in geneeration-2, one in generation-3, one in generation-5, and one in generation-7. If it's okay for the Titan Beam III to be superior, on paper, to the Pulse Wave Cannon III even though the Pulse Wave III doesn't have the secondary bombardment role, I don't see why the Shaktur FireStorm III should be equal to the Plasma Thunderbolt III on paper or in practice. In terms of research invested, it's much closer to being comparable to the Plasma Thunderbolt I and appears, on paper, to be superior to that weapon over the full shared range band; even compared against the Plasma Thunderbolt II it appears strictly superior at ranges less than 250 and has better per shot damage out until about 300 range.

The phaser lance change seems fine, though that might push the phaser lance into being too superior to the phaser cannon, due to much better range and very similar DPS combined with much better per-shot damage. Not sure how I feel about the rail gun changes; it seems to me that when the Impact Assault Blaster and Shatterforce Laser are introduced is about when rail guns should start failing. I'd think having that matchup be about a 50-50 shot for either side seems reasonable if both close to close quarters, but I really don't think that any of the rail guns should be competitive against Titan Beams.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:46 pm**

All i want is for rail guns to not suck

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:49 pm**

Ice, I salute you good Sir. [:)]
I was going to do this for a mod Im trying to get started on.
The work is much appreciated. I just hope that, in balancing, a parity in utility and uniqueness is maintained.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:49 am**

Rhikore, I agree, it is important to ensure the balance is not shifted too far the other way hence the testing and dialog. What is not shown in the posts above are the many other tests where I’ve optimised the damage values to produce the desired outcome. For example the original proposed change I had in mind for Phaser Lances make them strictly superior whereas for the refined damages there is the balance I’m seeking … these are the results that I am posting.

Aeson, thanks once more for your input, it’s appreciated. With Racial Weapons where we differ is on Philosophy. The idea I’m applying is that others can catch-up to Racial Weapons but it requires plenty of research effort; however, even with that effort you cannot exceed them as this would make Racial Weapons obsolete late game.

With the Shaktur Firestorm, as shown in the testing, Plasma Torpedoes are strictly superior late game … even when the ships are placed right next to each other at the start of the battle which should favour the Shaktur Firestorm. With the proposed change there is a balance depending on circumstances.

What would probably change the Shaktur Firestorm conclusion is the ability to set the AI Ship Design Templates to “Point Blank” (which doesn’t currently exist). Indeed, more broadly, I consider this change essential to make any Short Range Weapon competitive. Some smarts in Tractor Beams would help as well (which doesn’t currently exist). For example, if I had a ship with Phaser Lances, which have 0 loss within range, the Tractor beam should hold the enemy just inside full range … so my damage is at maximum while the opponents damage is minimised etc. These proposed changes could improve AI Battle Performance a lot.

With the Pulsewave Cannon, the change I had in mind was very small, which is why I didn’t mention it in the OP and only in Post 3. Specifically what I had in mind was a change of 0, +1 and +2. I’m yet to test this in the Battle Arena as it was low priority.

Please note that with the AI Improvement Mod, the AI Research Orders will ensure they get to mid-tier weapons very quickly, and they also won’t waste much time getting to Titan Beams / Plasma Torpedoes etc. In that context Rail Guns become obsolete almost immediately with the current damage levels. With the proposed change Titan Beams have the advantage (strict for larger ships, mixed results for smaller ships depending on circumstances) but the balance has already started shifting through the mid-tier.

I wasn’t planning to use Phaser Cannons in the AI Improvement Mod as there is no final tier for Phaser Cannons so they will be at a disadvantage late game. So I also don’t have any optimised Ship Design Templates to use for testing.

As a final note for all, when I provide the Wednesday AI Improvement Mod update, anybody should be able to do this exact same testing using Game Editor. Quameno use Beams, Wekkarus use PulseWave Cannons, Boskara uses Shaktur Firestorm, Kiadian uses Torpedoes, Dhayut/Sluken use Rail Guns and the Securans use Fighters. Ignore the Gizurean as they use Beams and hence need Bombardment Weapons. This will include all of the proposed Weapon Damage Changes. Your help with testing to further refine these proposed changes would be welcome and also anything else you notice in the Ship Designs that could be improved.

Cruiser testing is my favourite. And again please ignore Capital Ships for the moment.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:55 am**

So ... what about fighters? This is probably very AI Mod specific as I'm designing races that have a Fighter focus.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:56 am**

Aeson, thanks once more for your input, it’s appreciated. With Racial Weapons where we differ is on Philosophy. The idea I’m applying is that others can catch-up to Racial Weapons but it requires plenty of research effort; however, even with that effort you cannot exceed them as this would make Racial Weapons obsolete late game.

With the Shaktur Firestorm, as shown in the testing, Plasma Torpedoes are strictly superior late game … even when the ships are placed right next to each other at the start of the battle which should favour the Shaktur Firestorm. With the proposed change there is a balance depending on circumstances.

I think we're just going to have to disagree, then. I see no reason why it'd be a problem for the special weapons to be outclassed by the final upgrade in a much more expensive tech path, especially when it's still fairly comparable to the penultimate upgrade.

Also, if I'm reading the post correctly, your test shows that Plasma Thunderbolt IIIs are superior to Shaktur FireStorm IIIs in game, in addition to on paper. In my opinion, this is not a problem. Shaktur FireStorm IIIs cost much less research to obtain and have the ability to bombard planets and on paper appear to be comparable to Plasma Thunderbolt IIs within 400 or so range and better than Plasma Thunderbolt Is out to about 500 range, and unlike the other bombardment weapons are not utter garbage in ship-to-ship combat. Plus, even though the Plasma Thunderbolt eventually outclasses it as a ship-to-ship weapon, Plasma Thunderbolts still cannot be used to bombard planets, which leaves the Shaktur FireStorm III one role even in the late game in which it out-does the competition, that role being the combat capable bombardment ship.

So ... what about fighters? This is probably very AI Mod specific as I'm designing races that have a Fighter focus.

I do not at present have any strong opinions on fighters, aside from a lingering suspicion that the missile bombers are not really worth developing - they're essentially a completely separate branch of the fighter tree, and are not a prerequisite for any of the other parts of the fighter tree or anything else that I can remember, whereas you have to get at least the early torpedo bombers if you want to keep going up the main branch of the fighter tree, and I don't recall the missile bombers seeming particularly outstanding. It might be worthwhile, if possible, to try to separate out the three fighter types into three separate carrier bays so that the player has better control over what is actually carried in their carriers and so that you can set up a computer faction that likes to go heavy on the missile bombers with a small torpedo bomber group and a smaller interceptor group, and you might want to try tying the missile bomber line back into the fighter tree a bit more. If I recall correctly, the computer will default to building fighters and bombers in equal numbers on your carriers, and there's no way that I know of to change this; manually setting the carrier's fighter complement only worked until it started losing fighters the last time I played with it, and there isn't a policy setting I know of that lets you control what gets put into your fighter bays. I think, though I'm not certain, that the bomber used is always the most recently researched of the missile and torpedo bomber.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:32 am**

ORIGINAL: Aeson
I do not at present have any strong opinions on fighters, aside from a lingering suspicion that the missile bombers are not really worth developing - they're essentially a completely separate branch of the fighter tree, and are not a prerequisite for any of the other parts of the fighter tree or anything else that I can remember, whereas you have to get at least the early torpedo bombers if you want to keep going up the main branch of the fighter tree, and I don't recall the missile bombers seeming particularly outstanding. It might be worthwhile, if possible, to try to separate out the three fighter types into three separate carrier bays so that the player has better control over what is actually carried in their carriers and so that you can set up a computer faction that likes to go heavy on the missile bombers with a small torpedo bomber group and a smaller interceptor group, and you might want to try tying the missile bomber line back into the fighter tree a bit more. If I recall correctly, the computer will default to building fighters and bombers in equal numbers on your carriers, and there's no way that I know of to change this; manually setting the carrier's fighter complement only worked until it started losing fighters the last time I played with it, and there isn't a policy setting I know of that lets you control what gets put into your fighter bays. I think, though I'm not certain, that the bomber used is always the most recently researched of the missile and torpedo bomber.

Some observations.

Looking at the tech tree you can stick solely with either Missile Bombers or Torpedo Bombers without limiting general Fighter technology development. The Missile Bombers provide much greater range while Torpedo Bombers provide more damage. You'll also need some of the relevant Missile and Torpedo technologies developed, making them expensive to research fully (even if only focused on Missiles or Torpedo Bombers).

I've setup the Securans to use ship templates optimised for Fighters so they can be used for testing.

Firstly I used two Securan Empires with one focused on Missile Bombers and the other on Torpedo Bombers at Final Technology levels. The outcome was that when combat started at short range the Torpedo Bombers won, when combat started at long range the Missile Bombers won.

I then matched the Securans against the Quameno with Titan Beams and the Securans were easily defeated in all cases.

If the number of Fighters per bay was increased to 6 (from 4), Titan Beams were still dominant. However, I managed to score some Fighter victories at Titan Beam (I) v Advanced Missile Bombers by staying at range (there is a range difference of 170 which closes to 60 at Final Technology making it trickier particularly given the typical AI ship behaviour).

Fighters look underpowered so far.

That said, I don't play the game with Fighters and would like input from those that use them.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:46 pm**

Looking at the tech tree you can stick solely with either Missile Bombers or Torpedo Bombers without limiting general Fighter technology development. The Missile Bombers provide much greater range while Torpedo Bombers provide more damage. You'll also need some of the relevant Missile and Torpedo technologies developed, making them expensive to research fully (even if only focused on Missiles or Torpedo Bombers).

Torpedo bombers are required for one of the techs in the main branch of the fighter tree; it's the third tech or so. Missile bombers are not required in any such way, so even if you want to focus on missile bombers and missile technology you have to get at least the first torpedo tech and a couple torpedo bomber techs. If you want to focus on torpedo bombers, there's no such need to go out of your way and pick up a bit of tech in missile bombers.

Also, fighters are excellent base defenders because of the range that they engage at, and are very useful for swarming down enemy bases or supporting a heavy ship in close combat with the opposition. I don't think they're a great stand-alone weapon unless you're trying for stand-off ranges, but they aren't that bad as a support weapon. They're more comparable to missiles and torpedoes (at long range) than they are to something like a Titan Beam in close quarters.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:24 pm**

Icemania - As a data point for your consideration, I just wanted to note that I personally play with a mix of missiles and fighters, along with whatever other racial techs I can steal, and I have Destroyers as a ship class dedicated to getting up close, boarding, and capturing. My ships are fast and tend to be able to kite effectively. This lets me hit and run, mowing through stations and other fixed or slow defenses.

I really do appreciate the careful and systematic effort put into your analysis thus far, though - both with weapons and races! Cheers [:)]

Matrix Games Forums

Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing

RE: Weapons Balancing