Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Missiles vs Torps

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Missiles vs Torps Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Missiles vs Torps - 6/13/2014 6:53:47 AM   
Fleshbits

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 5/29/2014
Status: offline
Do you generally use torps instead of missles after the early game?
I've got 4 ships types, so I kind of do my loadouts:

Escort - All beam weapons and quick
Frigate - All missiles
Destroyer - Mostly torps and a few beam
Cruiser - All the support stuff and ions, tractor, and/or pods
Cap ship - Never really build

I wonder if I am screwing myself with the frigates mid and late game.
Post #: 1
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/13/2014 7:01:06 AM   
pycco

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 5/28/2013
From: United States of America
Status: offline
carrier are the strongest ships type in my experience.

a ship with a single weapon type will get countered most of the time, i put a variety of weapons on ships to avoid this.

torpedoes hit hard and slow, missiles are long range and great at besieging a base. laser are high dps and do well in close combat situations.

i would go for a beam weapons and torpedoes mid game.

late game i would go for torpedoes and fighters mixed with lasers or rail guns.

(in reply to Fleshbits)
Post #: 2
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/13/2014 8:21:17 PM   
Kantay

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fleshbits

Do you generally use torps instead of missles after the early game?
I've got 4 ships types, so I kind of do my loadouts:

Escort - All beam weapons and quick
Frigate - All missiles
Destroyer - Mostly torps and a few beam
Cruiser - All the support stuff and ions, tractor, and/or pods
Cap ship - Never really build

I wonder if I am screwing myself with the frigates mid and late game.


your problem right there is you are researching all the weapon types, slowing down your research. I recommend sticking to two types maximum, idealy one short ranged and one long ranged.

(in reply to Fleshbits)
Post #: 3
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/13/2014 8:37:51 PM   
Unforeseen


Posts: 608
Joined: 3/26/2013
From: United States of Disease
Status: offline
I use different weapons depending on my start position and what resources i have available at the beginning and what i can obtain via pirates. Usually i end up pushing into missiles, getting PD and then back tracking to a short range energy weapon with torpedoes. Most of my ships will be armed with 1 or 2 tractor beams, and 1 or 2 Ion Cannons. Cruisers and above get at least one fighter bay.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kantay)
Post #: 4
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/14/2014 5:25:34 AM   
ekiller

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/12/2014
Status: offline
I am new to the game. Just playing the first game after the tutorials. Have reached max ship size of 650 by now. This is what I am doing regarding the star crafts.


    Defensive fleets consist of:

    • 3 escorts: I make them light and as fast as possible. Carries shields, armours, and 5 laser guns. They are supposed to reach the battle field ASAP to defend it until other powerful crafts reach there.
    • 2 destroyers: they are my ranged force. Carries shields, armours, assault pods, predominately missiles, some rail guns, PDs, ion cannons for self defense and one tractor beam.
    • 5 frigates: main melee force. Carries shields, armours, assault pods, predominately laser guns, some rail guns, PDs, gravity beams, one tractor beam.
    • 1 capital ship: Has shields, armours. This one carries heavy and fleet level equipment like hyperdeny, fleet targeting, tracking and other sensors. It also carries some missiles and weapons but those are mainly for self defense.


    Attack fleets:

    • 1 Capital ship: same as above.
    • 3 destroyers: same as defensive fleet.
    • 5 cruisers: main melee attack force. It also carries Torpedoes. I do not fit torps in defensive fleets as it seems it is suitable against bases like space ports etc. Can some please tell whether torps are effective against other crafts or not?
    • 2 carriers: these mostly carries fighters and some weapons for self defense.


I must be doing many things wrong. Do point them out. Thanks.

(in reply to Unforeseen)
Post #: 5
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/14/2014 6:27:48 AM   
pycco

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 5/28/2013
From: United States of America
Status: offline
1 your fast escorts should be the ones with boarding pods, emp's, 15 lasers and make them have defense i would do shields to preserve speed of the class. along with warp stopping techs. i would put only the ships on defense of the one kind as a primary defense unit, have a higher damage fleet in key systems as well.

higher damage fleets should have lots of guns and good defense in place of speed, make sure you have countermeasures and targeting. also making some torpedo ships to put in this fleet is a good idea.

attacking fleets should not be built until you can hold your territory with defensive fleets.
for attacking fleets i would use carriers with a Command class. as well as a hard hitting torpedo, gravity, lasers ships with warp stopping.
command class ships should have long range sensors and light weapons with high defense as well as fleet countermeasures and fleet targeting, repair bots are great in general.

for attacking in enemy systems i would suggest having resupply ships available, this will make you able to sustain attacks for longer periods of time. having a few constructor ships to repair the attacking fleets when they get injured will also preserve the longevity of the fleets as well as save lots of $$$ from not having to rebuild the same ships over and over.

more guns means more FP and slow moving fortress is a good ships design for sieges of heavily defended systems. carriers are the biggest ship class they can be built 40% bigger than current tech size.

< Message edited by pycco -- 6/14/2014 7:43:12 AM >

(in reply to ekiller)
Post #: 6
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/14/2014 3:58:34 PM   
Tehlongone


Posts: 208
Joined: 12/21/2010
Status: offline
Carrier ships are generally best but they are cut to shreds by a proper attack fleet. I like using 18 cruisers, 2 capital ships.

The capital ships are then equipped with extra shields/armor and has all the fleet buffers and admirals/captains.

The Cruisers should be optimized with your most advanced weapon tech (I use phasers usually, it should be noted phasers target fighters when nothing else is in range) and 2x point defense. If they fly close together they kill ALL fighters like they were nothing. With decent engines and tractor beams they usually catch the carriers and prevent escape with hyperdeny, even if they don't they are almost impervious to harm if they stack their point defense by flying close together.

@OP you shouldn't put the fleet support stuff on cruisers, they don't stack so as long as one ship in the fleet has it you get the bonus, just 1-2 capital ships equipped with it is enough.

I only use missiles when I do the frigate/escort design with high engines, 1 fighter bay and 1 missile set to avoid close combat. They work pretty well in defensive fleets by drawing out the fight and even doing a fair bit of damage in numbers. Basically a cheap carrier.

< Message edited by Tehlongone -- 6/14/2014 5:04:49 PM >

(in reply to pycco)
Post #: 7
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/14/2014 4:18:30 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline
Early and mid game:

Escorts (all automated):
normal speed
high dpm, low to mid range (Maxos/Shatterforce in my mod)

Frigates (all automated):
fast
armament depends on enemies/techs/mood

Destroyer (manual/cheap fleet ships):
fast
very high dpm, low range (Maxos/Impact, maybe Shatterforce if research poor)
few long range siege weapons (missiles, maybe torps if enough research)

Cruiser (manual/System Defence):
fast and instant jump engines
like destroyers in armament, depends

Capital (manual/fleet character/siege):
normal speed
siege/long range weapons
heavy protection


I really like missiles for sieges, because of their constant damage and only use torpedoes on cruisers, frigates if I have enough research to spare.

< Message edited by Locarnus -- 6/14/2014 5:39:39 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Tehlongone)
Post #: 8
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/14/2014 4:34:12 PM   
Tehlongone


Posts: 208
Joined: 12/21/2010
Status: offline
Sieges? You mean station attacks?

When I take a station I usually just overwhelm them with superior firepower. Do you mean jumping into a system to draw ships away to deal with them first? In that case I prefer just selecting a nearby system and spend a bit of time there harassing their civilians, usually draws out a fleet or two.

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 9
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/14/2014 4:38:44 PM   
Aeson

 

Posts: 782
Joined: 8/30/2013
Status: offline
One thing to consider is that it's incredibly easy to supply enough power for missiles; concussion missiles require only ~7 output per missile, while assault missiles require only ~4 output per missile. For comparison, epsilon torpedoes require ~10 output per torpedo, velocity shards require ~13 output per torpedo, shockwave torpedoes require ~16 output per torpedo, plasma thunderbolts require 20 output per torpedo when first developed and 32 output per torpedo once you research the first upgrade, and shaktur firestorms require ~18 output per torpedo at first and ~23 output per torpedo with the first upgrade. This means that missiles are fairly easy to fit in as a secondary weapon for a ship whose primary armament is energy-intensive.

Regardless, end-game missiles are an incredibly bad choice for a primary weapon when compared to end-game torpedoes (though the first two assault missiles do have a very minor range advantage over the first two plasma thunderbolts, at 740 vs 690 range for assault 1s vs plasma 1s and 880 vs 830 range for assault 2s vs plasma 2s) as missiles provide very low DPS per unit size. Comparing the Plasma Thunderbolt III to the Assault Missile III and incorporating the effect of the power requirements by doing the math for the total number of each weapon supportable by a HyperFusion Reactor II, you can find that the Assault Missile III will only equal the DPS per unit size of the Plasma Thunderbolt setup at 900 range, despite a HyperFusion Reactor II being theoretically capable of supporting 50 Assault Missile IIIs but only 6 Plasma Thunderbolt IIIs by reactor output; the limit by reactor storage is 24 Assault Missile IIIs or 6 Plasma Thunderbolt IIIs. If you go for the weapon limitation by reactor storage, the missiles can match the alpha strike damage per unit size of the torpedoes at 500 range, while the limit by reactor output leaves the missile alpha strike worse until 900 range.

Weapon                   Output Limit   Size   Storage Limit   Size
Assault Missile III        50.2 (50)     716     24.4 (24)      352
Plasma Thunderbolt III     6.72  (6)      88     6.88  (6)       88

The number in parenthesis is the number of weapons used to compute the size. HyperFusion Reactors are size 16 and one such reactor was included in the listed size; the limits give above are the number of weapons you can support off of one HyperFusion Reactor II. Assault (cont.) refers to the 50 missiles per reactor limit, while Assault (alpha) refers to the 24 missiles per reactor limit. Since plasma is 6 torpedoes per reactor either way, it works for either. Note that this is favoring the missiles somewhat, as the total size of the missile setups is such that you could not easily fit multiples of the setups given, while the plasma torpedo setup can be mounted on a ship multiple times fairly easily.

DPS per unit size:
Range:            0000   0100   0200   0300   0400   0500   0600   0700   0800   0900   1000
Assault (cont.)   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47   0.47
Assault (alpha)   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45   0.45
Plasma            1.70   1.57   1.43   1.30   1.16   1.02   0.89   0.75   0.61   0.48   0.34


Alpha strike damage per unit size
Range:            0000   0100   0200   0300   0400   0500   0600   0700   0800   0900   1000
Assault (cont.)   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94   0.94
Assault (alpha)   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91   1.91
Plasma            3.41   3.14   2.86   2.59   2.32   2.05   1.77   1.50   1.23   0.95   0.68

You can see from the tables above that Assault Missile IIIs work better when configured as an alpha strike weapon (reactor storage limit) than when configured as a continuous DPS weapon (reactor output limit), as the alpha strike per unit size more than doubles while the DPS per unit size is barely affected. Regardless, unless you're planning to only engage at extreme long range (i.e. 900+ range), you're better off with Plasma Thunderbolt IIIs than Assault Missile IIIs if you can't end the fight soon after the alpha strike. I'd also point out that the two assault missile configurations given are incredibly large, especially in comparison to the plasma thunderbolt configuration. While it should be possible to achieve these configurations if you have enough of the construction research, the missile configurations, especially the output limit configuration, leave you much less space to play with on the rest of your ship. Of course, the missile storage limit configuration is also only using about half the reactor output, so you at least don't need to worry too much about fitting additional reactors to cover cruise and static energy requirements on that one.

It should also be noted that the missile configurations can allow for a much larger operating range than the torpedo configurations, due to the much lower energy requirements which translate to lower fuel requirements. One reactor to power 700 size worth of Assault Missiles is about as fuel-efficient as you're going to get, even though it's not the most effective configuration in terms of DPS per size unit; ~700 size of Plasma Thunderbolts requires about 10 reactors, which means that you'd need about 10 times as much fuel for the same amount of combat time as the 700 size of Assault Missiles. Thus, the missiles are fairly good for use far from base or for extended deployments in low-fuel areas, for reducing the fleet's fuel costs if the fleet sees a lot of combat, and for generally increasing the fleet's potential time on station. Adding in fuel components to the DPS per size unit and alpha strike per size unit computations will also shift the balance towards the missiles as 1 fuel cell will provide the same amount of combat time for 700 size of Assault Missiles as for 72 size of Plasma Thunderbolts, so adding in the size cost of the fuel cells to provide whatever amount of combat time you want will more severely affect the torpedo DPS and alpha strike per unit size than the missile DPS and alpha strike per unit size.

You should also be aware that these tables are more valid for large warships than small warships. No small warship is going to have 700 size units dedicated to weapons; even the 336 size worth of weapons on the missiles by storage limit setup is pushing it in the end game. You can nevertheless see that the missiles aren't hurting that much in the DPS per unit size department despite paring down the number of launchers carried, so while the DPS per size and alpha strike per size figures aren't attainable for small ships they may at least be close, especially since a reactor supplying the power for missiles likely has more than enough spare power to cover a decent portion of the other power requirements for a small ship, and in this case the output limit and storage limit for missiles may become fairly close, meaning that you can choose a missile armament which makes full use of the excess output without going too far over the storage limit (which controls the number of weapons in the alpha strike).

(in reply to pycco)
Post #: 10
RE: Missiles vs Torps - 6/14/2014 5:07:09 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline
@Tehlongone:

Yep, station attacks.
My fleets consist of lots of destroyers and few capital ships.
In the beginning the destroyers are missile only, as well as the capital ships, since the main use of fleets is the attack on pirate bases. For which I only want standoff weapons. That way a fleet of 6-8 ships can take out a pirate base, if they dont have a cruiser/capital ship. Jump in system, let pirates attack your ships, or wait for them to attack your cruiser protected systems, then standoff with base.
In the mid game the destroyers get mainly dpm/ion/tractor weapons as well, as there are more fleet vs fleet actions.

Every system has a cruiser on station, systems with higher threat level have unautomated, engage system targets cruiser fleets.

Escorts and frigates are automated, but mostly for atmosphere.

Its a bit of roleplaying.

@Aeson:
Very interesting read, thanks. I will keep that in mind when thinking about the weapons balance in my mod (signature).



< Message edited by Locarnus -- 6/14/2014 6:08:35 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Aeson)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Missiles vs Torps Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.176