|
|
Post by elwoodps on Feb 21, 2015 11:40:16 GMT -5
I've found the 2ap guns are grossly inferior to the whirlwind, and significantly inferior to all 1ap guns. The only exception is the assault fighter because boarding is amazing. At the high end of the tech tree 2ap fast reactors with 4 move don't exist. If you want 4 move on your fighters then 2ap guns are not possible at all. The 1ap gun has double the chance for critical/hits, which means your exp is more valuable, since that mods crit chance. The 2ap gun faces counter attacks for every shot, the 1ap gun only half as many counter attacks. When the 2ap gun misses, you get nothing. The 1ap gun almost always does a hit and miss rather than two misses (unless you have way too low attack stats). Attacks take up movement, if you kill an enemy a 1ap gun ship could move 3 after, the 2ap ship at best 2. If you overkill an enemy with a 2ap gun the damage is wasted. If you kill on one shot with 1ap the second can go against a different enemy, you can even move between shots. The mass and upkeep of 2ap guns is mathematically pathetic compared to the mass/damage of 1ap guns. Meaning more room for armor and aux systems for better total performance. Because not attacks twice, if you can keep it fueled a 1ap gun can use heavy barrage twice getting the damage bonus twice. Imagine 2ap hits for 20+4heavy total 24, 1ap hits for 10+4heavy twice total 28. Its not actually this good, but it is a nice advantage when you have fuel (especially defending your planets). Tl/Dr I can find no mathematically sound reason to mount a 2ap gun on a fighter. In every case there is a superior 1ap option. Do you ever bother with any light guns beyond the Whirlwind Mark II? Beyond that the mass of significantly more powerful guns (the Whirlwind Mark III really seems like a step backwards) forces me to choose a 2AP/3MP reactor to avoid giving up my cherished second shot. I've built some UHV Starkiller/Fast Reactor 17 fighters, just to see what they'd do, but I've got really mixed feelings about them: They definitely hit a lot harder, but their maintenance is way over double that of my WW Mk II/ Fast Reactor 7 combos, and they still only have 3MP.  |
|
|
|
Post by bookworm21 on Feb 21, 2015 11:41:01 GMT -5
elwoodps, how would increasing Sensors improve counter attack? In fact, can anyone provide insight into what roll if any Sensors play in combat? I've read elsewhere that Sensors currently aren't doing much. khamya9, that's an awesome break down of 1ap vs 2ap guns. I'm pretty well convinced to stick with 1ap, especially for fighters. It doesn't address enemy soak, is that because enemy soak is minimal or non-existent, or just for simplicity sake? Sensors improve the probability of a counter attack (to my knowledge, anyway). Apart from that, no at the moment they aren't great in combat - but I vaguely remember reading that they might be buffed sometime in the future. I think the thing with soak is that the 2AP guns don't do anywhere near 2x the damage of an equivalent 1AP gun, so the soak issue is basically non-existent. I think. |
|
|
|
Post by elwoodps on Feb 21, 2015 11:48:45 GMT -5
elwoodps, how would increasing Sensors improve counter attack? In fact, can anyone provide insight into what roll if any Sensors play in combat? I've read elsewhere that Sensors currently aren't doing much. khamya9, that's an awesome break down of 1ap vs 2ap guns. I'm pretty well convinced to stick with 1ap, especially for fighters. It doesn't address enemy soak, is that because enemy soak is minimal or non-existent, or just for simplicity sake? In the description of ship characteristics you linked to in your first post of this thread, it states: I read this to mean that more sensors increase the likelihood that your ship will counter-attack. |
|
|
|
Post by tenbsmith on Feb 21, 2015 16:31:59 GMT -5
Missing the sensor thing...  |
|
|
|
Post by khamya9 on Feb 23, 2015 16:42:56 GMT -5
I've found the 2ap guns are grossly inferior to the whirlwind, and significantly inferior to all 1ap guns. The only exception is the assault fighter because boarding is amazing. At the high end of the tech tree 2ap fast reactors with 4 move don't exist. If you want 4 move on your fighters then 2ap guns are not possible at all. The 1ap gun has double the chance for critical/hits, which means your exp is more valuable, since that mods crit chance. The 2ap gun faces counter attacks for every shot, the 1ap gun only half as many counter attacks. When the 2ap gun misses, you get nothing. The 1ap gun almost always does a hit and miss rather than two misses (unless you have way too low attack stats). Attacks take up movement, if you kill an enemy a 1ap gun ship could move 3 after, the 2ap ship at best 2. If you overkill an enemy with a 2ap gun the damage is wasted. If you kill on one shot with 1ap the second can go against a different enemy, you can even move between shots. The mass and upkeep of 2ap guns is mathematically pathetic compared to the mass/damage of 1ap guns. Meaning more room for armor and aux systems for better total performance. Because not attacks twice, if you can keep it fueled a 1ap gun can use heavy barrage twice getting the damage bonus twice. Imagine 2ap hits for 20+4heavy total 24, 1ap hits for 10+4heavy twice total 28. Its not actually this good, but it is a nice advantage when you have fuel (especially defending your planets). Tl/Dr I can find no mathematically sound reason to mount a 2ap gun on a fighter. In every case there is a superior 1ap option. Do you ever bother with any light guns beyond the Whirlwind Mark II? Beyond that the mass of significantly more powerful guns (the Whirlwind Mark III really seems like a step backwards) forces me to choose a 2AP/3MP reactor to avoid giving up my cherished second shot. I've built some UHV Starkiller/Fast Reactor 17 fighters, just to see what they'd do, but I've got really mixed feelings about them: They definitely hit a lot harder, but their maintenance is way over double that of my WW Mk II/ Fast Reactor 7 combos, and they still only have 3MP. The higher tech 1ap guns all do less damage than the whirlwind 2, but all have higher defense. If the ai is killing your fighters the starkiller plus some changes armor etc might make a huge difference. Most of your increased damage comes from improving the bridge in your first aux slot, not from better weapons, because there aren't any yet. However, do try an assault fighter as a 2ap attack ship. They absolutely hit more than twice as hard as a 1ap gun, and leave a defense/damage debuff on the target ship, which is quite potent. |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Feb 24, 2015 10:46:35 GMT -5
Boarding is very important. It is also a great Talent for Carriers =)
|
|
|
|
Post by elwoodps on Mar 4, 2015 9:08:34 GMT -5
Do you ever bother with any light guns beyond the Whirlwind Mark II? Beyond that the mass of significantly more powerful guns (the Whirlwind Mark III really seems like a step backwards) forces me to choose a 2AP/3MP reactor to avoid giving up my cherished second shot. I've built some UHV Starkiller/Fast Reactor 17 fighters, just to see what they'd do, but I've got really mixed feelings about them: They definitely hit a lot harder, but their maintenance is way over double that of my WW Mk II/ Fast Reactor 7 combos, and they still only have 3MP. The higher tech 1ap guns all do less damage than the whirlwind 2, but all have higher defense. If the ai is killing your fighters the starkiller plus some changes armor etc might make a huge difference. Most of your increased damage comes from improving the bridge in your first aux slot, not from better weapons, because there aren't any yet. However, do try an assault fighter as a 2ap attack ship. They absolutely hit more than twice as hard as a 1ap gun, and leave a defense/damage debuff on the target ship, which is quite potent. Thanks, I'll really have to give boarding a try.  |
|
|
|
Post by tenbsmith on May 13, 2015 10:20:04 GMT -5
In the thread linked below, Cory indicates that Gun and Torp attack/defense bonuses are specific to the mode of attack and do NOT stack (e.g., a gun's attack bonus does not help with a torp attack). Further, he clarifies that the bonuses for "Planetary Invasion" only help with invasion. But the "Gun" bonuses associated with troops help with both invasion and boarding. startradersrpg.proboards.com/thread/10830/attack-defense-bonuses |
|
|
|
Post by anrdaemon on May 13, 2015 11:56:15 GMT -5
I need help with ship design. Below are a few requests and some info I've gathered. 1) When, based on the Tech Tree, can you design a fighter that is superior to the Strike Fighter design with which you start? (Similar questions could be asked regarding when to design your first cruiser, carrier, etc?) Right off the bat. Delete the "canned design", create your own. Speaking of fighters, the default strike fighter design is below the ground on the scale of efficiency in early game and not getting any better later. Example I'm using right now: Chaff lv.2. Fast Reactor 3
Durability 5/Shielding 5/Evasion 7/Refuel 2/Guns 10
Guns 6/Pilot 5/Yes, you read it right, NO repair.
Imperator LB-X
Phoenix Defense Pod
Duranium Plating
Gun Barrage + any fuel-consuming attack of your choice
1/4, 82 HP, 68 fuel
If you have +Evasion claddings available by the time you're making design, be sure to pick one over plating. You may trade some durability/shielding for sensors, but I would not recommend it if you plan to use design for long. At one point, you will start getting more hits per turn and you will need some buffer to survive and either get support or retreat. But that is not a point of the design. The point is to manufacture them in numbers and throw them away and replace as fast as possible. If you have carrier support, that's a bonus, but not a necessity. Don't mix guns. And I do mean that in broad scope. If you know a game named Stars!, I've dramatically improved efficiency of my designs after reading that site. And it still stands above any design I make, in game or in software. Do. Not. Mix. Guns. Don't mix purposes, if you want to put it that way. Start from the single problem you want to solve and buld your design towards the solution. If at one point you feel that you are making a kind of jack-of-all-trades design, you probably need to review your base idea. |
|
|
|
Post by tenbsmith on May 13, 2015 14:40:00 GMT -5
anrdaemon, I have to disagree regarding canned designs, they have their place. In particular, they tend to use technology that is not available until a couple of nodes further along on the tech tree. That said, custom designing ships is the way to go. I like your chaff fighter, I'll have to experiment with something like that. I agree that specialized designs end up being more effective. Do one thing and do it well. ------------Edit-------------- More good, specialized ship designs to be found on pages 17-18 of this thread: startradersrpg.proboards.com/thread/11125/great-clans-community-play?page=17
|
|
|
|
Post by CdrPlatypus on May 14, 2015 1:54:55 GMT -5
I think going to edit to view the stats on the canned designs is useful it's taught me a lot
Also I disagree about mixing guns. It depends on the use of the ship I have cruisers built specifically for defense duty and counter attacking that have both guns and tops so they can counter ranged and gun attacks
|
|
