Prospective Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Hi all, I've got questions about tech research of CIDS defensive systems. At this point, I can choose from two options, the Laser CIDS and the 4cm Gatling CIDS. My question is, what is the difference between the two (other than one fires projectiles and one fires coherent beams)? Both are rated as being fair, both provide protection against fighters/drones/missiles and both is at the starting point of their own tech tree. However, won't there be equivaltent systems down each branch (eg: Adequate, Good, Superior, Impressive, etc...)? Does the game differentiate between a GOOD rated "projectile-type CIDS" and a GOOD rated "coherent beam CIDS"? For instance, it might be possible for a fast enough incoming missile/fighter/drone to dodge projectiles spewed from a Gatling CIDS. However, trying to dodge the speed of light Laser CIDS is unlikely... hence the laser would be a better system in the long run. OR, perhaps the projectiles from the Gatling CIDS pack more of a punch when they hit, so the Gatling CIDS would be a more efficient missile/fighter/drone killer. Comments? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Hi all, I've got questions about tech research of CIDS defensive systems. At this point, I can choose from two options, the Laser CIDS and the 4cm Gatling CIDS. My question is, what is the difference between the two (other than one fires projectiles and one fires coherent beams)? Both are rated as being fair, both provide protection against fighters/drones/missiles and both is at the starting point of their own tech tree. However, won't there be equivaltent systems down each branch (eg: Adequate, Good, Superior, Impressive, etc...)? Does the game differentiate between a GOOD rated "projectile-type CIDS" and a GOOD rated "coherent beam CIDS"? For instance, it might be possible for a fast enough incoming missile/fighter/drone to dodge projectiles spewed from a Gatling CIDS. However, trying to dodge the speed of light Laser CIDS is unlikely... hence the laser would be a better system in the long run. OR, perhaps the projectiles from the Gatling CIDS pack more of a punch when they hit, so the Gatling CIDS would be a more efficient missile/fighter/drone killer. Comments? Thanks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The simple answer is that the choice is yours..... From all that we understand, and the same holds true for offensive weapons; ton for ton "Fair" = "Fair"......and....."Good" = "Good" and thus all the options are balenced against each other. It just depends which tree you want to go down........ Now that said, it depends what else you're researching.......the projectile CIDS branch is uncomplicated - the branches that Laser CIDS can open is anything but 'uncomplicated'..... Chief Scientist to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospective Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Thanks for the response U-L.T. One thing about offensive weapons though. I think you meant to say that FAIR=FAIR or GOOD=GOOD ton for ton assuming they are of the same type (eg: projectile, coherent beam, gravitonic, plasma, etc). From the descriptions I've read, it appears that a plasma type weapon is effective only at short range and damage output falls off based on distance. My assumption is that a coherent beam is effective at longer ranges and fighters/missiles/drones are even longer ranged weapons. So, different class weapon systems would not necessarily be equivalent ton for ton, but same-class weapons that are rated the same would be equivalent. Right? Or am I off? That leads to a question about the description for "Energy Dispersion Armor Coating". It says that "The level of protection offered is poor, but it is unusual in that almost every other defensive system protects against only one weapon type - EDAC degrades many energy-based weapons to a small degree." The rating is listed as FAIR against Fusion blast, coherent beam, particle beams, frost bolts, etc. So, is the description essentially "eye candy" (the part about offering poor protection) and we should rely only on the FAIR rating? It seems to me that if EDAC is rated FAIR against 5 different weapon types and Ablative Armor Coating is rated as FAIR only against coherent beam weapons, why would you ever develop AAC where you can get the identical protection plust protection vs. 4 other weapons classes? Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I believe that the answer is that Ablative armor coating is good against a specific weapon type whereas EDAC is good against several So, ton for ton, Ablative is better if you know you are going to engage that particular weapon, and EDAC is better if you don't know what you are up against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospective Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 octagon 999, I see your point and that was my initial thought (AAC would be more effective against coherent beam than EDAC). But from Ur-Lord's comments (that the game looks at the system's rating and that ton for ton, FAIR=FAIR, GOOD=GOOD, etc...) it would seem that since both EDAC and AAC are rated as FAIR, their value would be equal regardless of the description. Of course, I have no practical experience in that matter, so AAC could be more effective vs coherent beams... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Thanks for the response U-L.T. One thing about offensive weapons though. I think you meant to say that FAIR=FAIR or GOOD=GOOD ton for ton assuming they are of the same type (eg: projectile, coherent beam, gravitonic, plasma, etc). From the descriptions I've read, it appears that a plasma type weapon is effective only at short range and damage output falls off based on distance. My assumption is that a coherent beam is effective at longer ranges and fighters/missiles/drones are even longer ranged weapons. So, different class weapon systems would not necessarily be equivalent ton for ton, but same-class weapons that are rated the same would be equivalent. Right? Or am I off? .......................... Steve <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're welcome.... Actually we did mean that they are the 'same'. Whilst the Naval Combat Supplement may elucidate some more and, indeed, happily prove us wrong; at present and, on a ton for ton basis, we believe each weapon generation has exactly the same base firepower, which is then modified by the range they are designed for. The combat system is then perfectly 'fair' (well, not perfectly, but that's another story and more to do with economics....). What we then have is a myriad of Offense vs Defence vs DepLoc vs Ship Size to play with in the galaxy's biggest game of rock-paper-scissors - plus a bit of randomness, let alone the unknown effect of race...... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Lariss Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 octagon 999, I see your point and that was my initial thought (AAC would be more effective against coherent beam than EDAC). But from Ur-Lord's comments (that the game looks at the system's rating and that ton for ton, FAIR=FAIR, GOOD=GOOD, etc...) it would seem that since both EDAC and AAC are rated as FAIR, their value would be equal regardless of the description. Of course, I have no practical experience in that matter, so AAC could be more effective vs coherent beams... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do not Think Defensive systems work the same as offensive systems. My impression is that to maximize your protection against a specific defense it takes a % of the ships tonnage in that defense. thus a fair rateing may requre say 1% of ships tonage for a 1% reduction in the effectivenes of that weapon type while an excelent rating may give say a %5 defense for each 1% of total ship tonnage (numbers are made up and meant to be examples only). So while EDAC may have a fair rating the % is divided between the 5 weapon types. So while each 1% total tonnage of EDAC on a ship may offer 1% worth of protection it only reduces say Plasma Splash by 0.2%. Anyway that is how I am basing my ship builds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 I do not Think Defensive systems work the same as offensive systems. My impression is that to maximize your protection against a specific defense it takes a % of the ships tonnage in that defense. thus a fair rateing may requre say 1% of ships tonage for a 1% reduction in the effectivenes of that weapon type while an excelent rating may give say a %5 defense for each 1% of total ship tonnage (numbers are made up and meant to be examples only). So while EDAC may have a fair rating the % is divided between the 5 weapon types. So while each 1% total tonnage of EDAC on a ship may offer 1% worth of protection it only reduces say Plasma Splash by 0.2%. Anyway that is how I am basing my ship builds I think that is probably close to the way it works too. Hopefully the forthcoming Naval Combat Guide will shed some light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgwen Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Being new still, I am not stating how things work, but, if a weapon requires projectiles, do you also have to "produce" the ammo for it? In that case, energy begins to look better in my books? Just a thought. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Being new still, I am not stating how things work, but, if a weapon requires projectiles, do you also have to "produce" the ammo for it? In that case, energy begins to look better in my books? Just a thought. Larry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, starships and their weapons don't require maintenance and 'standard' weapons don't require power or ammunition. Nor do crews need paying, which is somewhere we might have gone..... Fighters and Drones, however, are more expendable and enemy Point Defence can also actually destroy them. You will therefore need to resupply them if you want to keep their numbers up. That said, if you want to move your fleets to other systems, then you will need large quantities of Fuel - so this is the one simple mechanism that replaces all instances of fuel, food, reactor mass, spare parts - etc..... Regards Chief Planner to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandaemonium Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 From the ship/combat descriptions posted earlier elsewhere, assuming they are accurate, and (God help me) I do, the Reflective-class defense rating is, in part, equal to 10 (Fair?) X (Ablative Armor Coating mass) / (total ship mass). For EDAC, 10 X (Energy Dispersion Armor Coating mass) / (total ship mass) is applied to each of Meson Web, Phase Inversion, Reflective, Tachyon Grid, and Thermal Regulation (?) individually. If they're lyin', I'm dyin'. Mike Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 From the ship/combat descriptions posted earlier elsewhere, assuming they are accurate, and (God help me) I do, the Reflective-class defense rating is, in part, equal to 10 (Fair?) X (Ablative Armor Coating mass) / (total ship mass). For EDAC, 10 X (Energy Dispersion Armor Coating mass) / (total ship mass) is applied to each of Meson Web, Phase Inversion, Reflective, Tachyon Grid, and Thermal Regulation (?) individually. If they're lyin', I'm dyin'. Mike Curtis <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's okay, that is how the numbers seem to work out..... However, we still have no idea what they mean! If they are a straight percentage, then we really aren't seeing any big numbers yet..... We seem to have teased out that the weapon (unmodified) strengths, the integrity and the shield numbers are all relative and commensurate to each other, but the defense ratings are just numbers at the moment. Even more curiously the Point Defense rating gets modified if fighters are present, just like you've calculated above, but becomes even more confusing as the fighters seem to add their defense to every ship individually, but all at the same time. It's something else we're hoping for in the Naval Combat Supplement... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 ven more curiously the Point Defense rating gets modified if fighters are present, just like you've calculated above, but becomes even more confusing as the fighters seem to add their defense to every ship individually, but all at the same time. blink.gif I expect that we can modify that effect on Point Defense by giving different orders for fighters and that this is explained in the Naval Combat Supplement too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.