|
|
Post by En1gma on Dec 12, 2014 7:05:38 GMT -5
It does depend on the skill level as well- if you have a high levels of gun attack rolls and lower attack rolls for your torps, this will affect the damage output as well. Putting high attacking weapons without the skill behind it to increase the rolls isn't going to be effective at all. Just offering what advice I can, I don't see your designs so I can't really tell what's going on... If you have the skills on the torps, they should definitely be hitting harder than 9 damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 12, 2014 10:53:27 GMT -5
I've heard the argument for Transport combat ships before, and I just don't see it. You can put a Lance on a Carrier and have a much more effective ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by khamya9 on Dec 12, 2014 10:58:36 GMT -5
It does depend on the skill level as well- if you have a high levels of gun attack rolls and lower attack rolls for your torps, this will affect the damage output as well. Putting high attacking weapons without the skill behind it to increase the rolls isn't going to be effective at all. Just offering what advice I can, I don't see your designs so I can't really tell what's going on... If you have the skills on the torps, they should definitely be hitting harder than 9 damage. Here's the full build of the one I mentioned earlier in this thread, though that post had the type of torps off the rest was correct. ............................ Level 4 Reactor 9 (2/3 move, 4 refuel) Captain Guns 1 Pilot 2 Torps 4 Steal 2 Rep 4 Ship Guns 2 Torps 10 Durab 5 Shield 2 Eva's 4 Send 3 Light railgun (160 mass, 6-23dmg, $6) Mark 40 torps (680 mass, 13-23dmg, $24) Reactor spike (160mass, +2 DMG, +1hyper dmg, $20) Ceramic hybrid armor (4 armor, $12) Barrage Torps spread 1 .................... On paper the top should be dealing (13 min + 3 spike + 12 spread) 28-38 DMG and the railgun 6-25 (assuming g the +2 spike works and the +1 hyper doesn't). In practice the torps hits for 10 and under using 8 fuel each time while the railgun is free and hits into the 20s reliably. Now the railgun is horridly innacurate and misses alot, while the torps ha e over 80% accuracy. But I think that's just the captain/ship stats. Notice that the torps is nearly half the ships maintenance cost per turn, and it's pure junk ($44 put of a total 108). And nearly 2/3 of the captain and ship stats. This is degla extreme vs three (krangg, xytox, zenga), and using the same in garden against everyone. no difference in performance regardless of enemy xeno type. Missile ships take slightly more damage from both attacks (avg 2 points more) than mass driver ships. Hard difficulty level 2 and 3 enemy ships. Edit: I have tested every torp from the Templar guardians up to udalox and none of them equal or exceed the railgun of equal tech level. |
|
|
|
Post by En1gma on Dec 12, 2014 13:08:38 GMT -5
Perhaps Cory Trese or fallen can shed some more light on this... I know for myself, splitting between guns and torps is a much less effective strategy for overall performance... If I'm making a Torpedo Cruiser, I put full focus on torp skills (of course keeping hull and other systems balanced)... Likewise if I have a Railgun Cruiser, I focus on guns and like systems. Just speaking for myself here, but due to the cost and dedication that Torpedo class ships require, I usually only have one or two dedicated Torpedo Gunboats per battle group... I find them to be very effective at cleaning up enemy forces. For 80% of my battle groups, I rely on Fighters and Railgun Cruisers for most of my DPS... |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 12, 2014 14:15:12 GMT -5
Using Torpedo ships you can have more ships in range of the enemy, and you can attack mass driver xeno without counter attack, and disable counter attack on a ship and take better advantage of it with Torpedoes.
Torpedo are very effective as a cleanup weapon to give Cruisers additional Last Hit abilities. Because heavy ships (Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, Carriers, Heavy Carriers, Strike Cruisers) all benefit more from Experience than Fighters and Transports, this can be very important ability for gaining XP.
Torpedo Spread, as a training ability, is one of the most effective in the game. High Water-Fuel training is more effective for defense, or when using Refueling Carriers.
|
|
|
|
Post by khamya9 on Dec 12, 2014 15:28:16 GMT -5
Perhaps Cory Trese or fallen can shed some more light on this... I know for myself, splitting between guns and torps is a much less effective strategy for overall performance... If I'm making a Torpedo Cruiser, I put full focus on torp skills (of course keeping hull and other systems balanced)... Likewise if I have a Railgun Cruiser, I focus on guns and like systems. Just speaking for myself here, but due to the cost and dedication that Torpedo class ships require, I usually only have one or two dedicated Torpedo Gunboats per battle group... I find them to be very effective at cleaning up enemy forces. For 80% of my battle groups, I rely on Fighters and Railgun Cruisers for most of my DPS... That's my usual strategy too, except I don't find torps useful for anything. Been trying and am not ready to give up on them, but by the numbers they are absolutely horrible. Cost more to build and maintain, cost more to fire, and do vastly less damage both on paper and in practice. Cory, I see the goal with them,but really the numbers seem way off. Compare any railgun with the same tech level torpedo and the difference is too big in favor of the railgun. |
|
|
|
Post by En1gma on Dec 12, 2014 16:11:56 GMT -5
khamya9- I'd agree that they might not do as much damage as a comparable Railgun. They're more of an indirect fire support than a main source of damage. In the game on Garden I'm playing, I only have two Torp Cruisers for my whole fleet, and I have 15 systems inhabited. My Carriers always use them, and I have one of each repair and refuel. The rest is purely Fighters and Railgun Cruisers. I definitely wouldn't have more than you think you need- they don't provide nearly as much raw power as a RG. I usually have the Torpedo class Cruisers chill out between fighter groups, and then they only target the ships that have less than 25% hull remaining- it's rare that they don't get the kill.
|
|
|
|
Post by khamya9 on Dec 12, 2014 19:21:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the tips!
|
|
|
|
Post by Awesomdary on Dec 13, 2014 0:49:08 GMT -5
I've heard the argument for Transport combat ships before, and I just don't see it. You can put a Lance on a Carrier and have a much more effective ship. You could, but then you couldn't refuel it... |
|
|
|
Post by Awesomdary on Dec 13, 2014 1:08:22 GMT -5
That is a neat strategy. Can you post one of your combat transport designs? This is the current Combat Transport I am using mostly for defence: I't an evasion build Level 4 Reactor 7 Ship: Gun 9, torp 0, Durability 6, Shielding 0, Evasion 10 Captain: Gun 5, pilot 0, Torp 0, Stealth 0, Repair 7, Warrior 0, Invasion 0 Weapon: Starshot Lance (2 AP, 14-31 Damage, +2 Attack, +2 Defence) Armor: Reinforced Duranium Cladding (8 armor +2 Evade, +3 Stealth) Training (Heavy Barrage 1, Precision Barrage 1, Sector Scan 3) Simple build and packs a punch, and it can be refueled, in the later game I might swich them out for battlecruisers with massive railguns though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 10:32:08 GMT -5
That is a neat strategy. Can you post one of your combat transport designs? @enigma, when I quote damage numbers, I always talk damage actually received by the enemy, not damage in theory. For example, in theory, my main mid game cruiser design has a max of 29 damage with its torps and 17 with its railgun. In actuality it does 9 with the torps and 20+ with the railgun against most enemies. So I tend to call it a 9 damage ship. When I compare a 35 damage fighter and 60 damage cruiser I don't mean base stats on the gear. I mean when you shoot, what damage number appears on average. Heavy Transport, level 10, reactor 15, Archangel Drop shuttles, reinforced kallaxian cladding (25 armor), +12 damage troops, invasion, sensor, shielding, gun barrage, evasion/hull, repair, pilot, stealth, gun attack (in order to ship materials and skills allocation stress) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 10:36:35 GMT -5
That's my usual strategy too, except I don't find torps useful for anything. Been trying and am not ready to give up on them, but by the numbers they are absolutely horrible. Cost more to build and maintain, cost more to fire, and do vastly less damage both on paper and in practice. Cory, I see the goal with them,but really the numbers seem way off. Compare any railgun with the same tech level torpedo and the difference is too big in favor of the railgun. I totally disagree. The new KK torpedos really pack quite a punch, exceeding even the heaviest railgun. A Battlecruiser with a tiberia KK torpedo, bounty hunter crew, bounty hunter bridge and torpedo spread will kill any ship in one shot, including world killers. And unlike railguns, they can counter both gun and torpeo attack, and attack from a range if you aren't fast enough to move 1 space from the ship you want to kill. It's more massive and expensive, but well worth it. I've heard the argument for Transport combat ships before, and I just don't see it. You can put a Lance on a Carrier and have a much more effective ship. But transports have troops, which mass for attack is better than any bridge or prow. I mean, +7 gun attack and +12 damage is good for invasion, but it's unworldly for ship to ship combat (no pun intended). |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 13, 2014 15:17:56 GMT -5
Every time this comes up I deeply regret giving Transports the ability to mount any type of non-invasion weapons.
It was a mistake. I'm tempted to just fix it, but I know that would badly break a lot of people's games.
I guess I will just slowly keep nerfing Transports -- starting with Troops for non-Invasion / non-Boarding combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 0:34:37 GMT -5
Every time this comes up I deeply regret giving Transports the ability to mount any type of non-invasion weapons. It was a mistake. I'm tempted to just fix it, but I know that would badly break a lot of people's games. I guess I will just slowly keep nerfing Transports -- starting with Troops for non-Invasion / non-Boarding combat. What's wrong with transports being good combat ships in addition to colony/ invasion ships? Is this not what you intended? Also, troops helps for boarding combat? How is this possible, when troops increase gun attack, and boarding is based on warrior? Furthermore, why would you give an armament type boarding bonuses and then restrict it to a ship with no boarding weapons? Personally, I never use transports for combat, unless its only temporarily and I plan to use it to colonize a planet in the near future. This is because I was never sure of troops' effectiveness for railguns or lances. I assumed they were more beneficial for invasion. Seeing your response, I now see the attack and damage bonuses are just as effective on a railgun as a drop shuttle, but I still am unsure if it is worthwhile with the lack of another combat armament, decreased durability compared to heavier ships and decreased weapon power compared to the plasma cannon. Plus, now that you've announced you're gonna nurf the combat abilities of troops, it's certainly not worth it! |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 14, 2014 3:03:12 GMT -5
Well, no matter what we decide there will be a lot of testing and balancing before we change anything.
The rallying cry that Transports are better than all other ships concerns me because, if true, it would make the game very dull.
|
|
