By looking at your graphs, it looks to me like Graviton Drivers aren't really better than Quantum Drivers anymore, as it says in the wiki just above the graphs. But it is striking to note just how better missiles are in almost every situation.

Iztok, I recommend that you find some way to incorporate research cost into your analysis.

Missiles are indeed supreme once you've researched all the techs; however, Psyonic Beams and Doom Rays are often more useful in practice because you can deploy them more quickly. I made a table for myself with cumulative research cost of all weapons vs. cost-effectiveness and space-effectiveness, and it's the Psyonic Beam that looks to me like the most important weapon in the game.

Oops. My bad.

I am playing a game right now where I am WAY! behind in weapons tech, the Yor are using missiles and making 16 Missile attack Heavy Fighters. I decided to go the route I usually don't by going with mass drivers. I am currently 2 whole sets of weapons behind them, just now getting up to 2 attack per weapon where the Yor are 5 attack per weapon. The extra 1 atk that the Heavy Fighters have is from their experience against the Altarians who never got above a 2 beam attack Heavy Fighter

I guess Missiles are better after all, haha, though I only have 4 planets while the Yor have about 30. I think that I am still going to win this one. My defenders have only 4 mass driver attack, but can take a beating before they go down. I am using medium hulls while the Yor are still using Small hulls. haha, this is gonna be fun!

Missiles look better with how I am almost losing right now, but Mass Drivers WILL PREVAIL!!!!

Yawl take it easy,
GalenEvil

Nice work, looks like it took you some time to put it together.

One comment on the Dark Avatar combat system.
I may have missed it, sorry if I did, but under the new combat in Dark Avatar aren't weapon mounts targeted individualy ? I believe this to be the case. If this is true then the number of mounts you can place on your hull can make a big difference in performance. Kind of muddled here but this is what I am trying to get at, If you are facing an enemy that fleets it ships you may be better off putting more indivual mounts of a smaller damage weapon since they would be able to target more individual ships per turn. For instance if the enemy fleet is made up up 4 small ships with 8 hp each wouldn't it be better to have 8 mounts of 4 dmg weapons than 2 mounts of 16 dmg weapons ? I realize this all depends on how your opponent is armed and what level of logistics they have so it gets complicated, but it seems to me that the individual targeting aspect can change the whole equation.

Hi!

Just check the space, needed for 8 weapons that do 4 damage, and compare it with space needed for 2 weapons of 16 damage, and you'll have your answer.

BR, Iztok

Have you seen the cost of those weapons? You will definitely want to continue researching up the tech tree.

Missiles are clearly the strongest for a Neutral with a strong economy and NLCs(You get new torpedoes faster). Beams are the best for Evils(Psyonic Beam, specifically). Mass Drivers are the best for pacifists/diplomats who hold out on war until the high-tech era and suddenly unleash ships filled with compact Black Hole Generators.

At the bottom of the tech tree, missiles rule. The Stinger does twice the damage of contemporary beams and guns. At the top of the tech tree, missiles rule again with the Black Hole Eruptor being more powerful and smaller than the Doom Ray.

Lets look at reality for a moment - we're researching missile techs right now, and are widely employing missiles on modern fighter aircraft, ships and ground systems.

We've already got lots out of the guns line and they're still there but have taken second place to missiles since the early '60s due to a factor that will disappear in space combat - range.

Humans have just started on beam(directed energy) weapons - in the form of anti-artillery systems and the Airborne Laser(an aircraft-based anti-missile laser that takes up all the space inside a Boeing 747!). The current problem with DE weapons is atmospheric refraction/distortion/dilution, which won't exist in space.

So we clearly have an edge in missiles - in TA, with the unique tech trees, I expect the Terrans/Altarians/Arceans to focus on missiles, the Drengin/Korath/Thalan on beams, the Torians/Yor/Iconians on guns, and the Krynn/Korx/Drath to be unfocused on any specific weapon type.



1. Missiles have only one drawback - research costs. Otherwise, they rule.

2. Point Defenses are like beams in defenses(low research cost, mediocre performance), Armor is equivalent to missiles(high performance, high research cost) and Shields are just plain weak. IMO, defenses are pointless in DL - if you have high enough attack and high speed, you can kill the enemy without ever getting shot at. DA rules beef-up defense effectiveness, but I think that offense is the best defense.

3. Mass Drivers are small - in the super high-tech ending saga of long drawn out games, you can fit tons and tons of Ultimate Miniaturized Black Hole Generators in those huge hulls - however, you must be Evil, since the only weapon strong enough to hold out until you reach the top of the tree is the 10-damage Psyonic Shredder.

4. There is only one true super-weapon - the ridiculously expensive Nano Ripper. The others - Psyonic Missile, Psyonic Beam and Psyonic Shredder are all Evil-only techs. For Good and Neutral, you just climb as normal.

5. No, in DA, the weapons are largely the same. Defenses have been boosted up, engines have been nerfed and combat rules have been changed to help defenses.

2. High speed means that you can attack the enemy when they can't attack you. You get the first shot. In DL, this means a lot since everyone has a First Strike ability. But not in DA. Also, if you survive, you can attack more targets. This means a fast, very high attack ship/fleet can go on a rampage in DL, not giving it's targets a chance to fire back.

3. Psyonic Shredder is more powerful than even Neutrino Bullets. It, NB, and BHG are the only Mass Drivers that can match higher end missiles/beams in destructive power. But I didn't consider how tiny HD Spike Drivers are when I wrote that post.

Another thing that goes against missiles in the beginning is size. They're usually take around 10-12 in terms of space until you get past the Stingers and Harpoon techs. The other techs, however, are much smaller and can actually fit on a tiny design in the beginning.

What does s.x mean?

Upon analysis, Mass Driver weapons are inferior to counterpart Beams and Missiles in everything except price, and cheap but weak ships are worse than pricey but powerful ships because of attrition. The developers haven't balanced the guns out well with the other weapons. Mass Drivers also have to face the strongest defense: Armor.

A few awkward things about beams though:

- What's with the Subspace Blaster? It's worse than Disruptors 3 in every way.

- What is Subspace Annihilator? It appears to be just a pure research tech.

- What's with the huge jump from the 8-damage Subspace Blaster to the 22-damage Doom Ray? That's an amazing leap. All the weapon systems have a considerable power-jump from their penultimate forms to their ultimate forms, but this is ridiculous.

Hi!

Like I wrote on the OP: I dowloaded the data some months before I did the analysis, hence I don't remember from where. If I would I would state the author. But the site was of an GC fan, and maybe I got to it through GC Library.   


A slang word for not good at all.

BR, Iztok