Weapons - enhanced analysis

Thanks for all the work you do Iztok. Out of all of it though, the ship/weapon write ups are what I use most. Keep up the good work.

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.

A good opportunity to overhaul the techtree.
Create the Subspace Annihilator.
Streamline the weapons/defenses by giving all versions of the same item the same attack/defense value (all phasors/disruptors/spike/photon/etc deal the same damage; all barriers/fields/kanvium/etc soak the same damage); if need be, make up new names for them. For consistency sake.
Same with engines, Warp Drive V and above.
Make Sensors increase with each level, and decrease hulls' base sensor range - all the same size, like Life Support?
Change the name of the component General Life Support to General Support, like every other Support module, for consistency sake    (sorry, couldn't help it, the QA man in me is making me do this)

BTW, I noticed that some versions of some items, like the Railguns and PointDefense and up, decrease in size AND increase (railguns) / decrease (PD+) in cost. Is that intentional? Usually items have a constant cost.

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.

Seems he did:



Also look at the 3rd table.

Oops. My bad.

I've always been doing missiles because Psyonic Missiles stand out dollar-for-dollar. But these charts do seem to indicate that Lasers may be the better choice, unless you think you can wait all the way to Psyonic Missiles before you go to war. I know I go to war long before that.

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

You see that insane 5x spike in the third graph, towering over the other Psyonic weapons as well as any other weapon requiring less than ~50k research? That's the Psyonic Beam, not the Psyonic Missile.

Psyonic Missile: 6 damage, 11 space in medium hull, 100 cost
Psyonic Beam: 12 damage, 9 space in medium hull, 150 cost

The Beam does so much damage that it's actually 33% more cost-effective than the Missile (100% more damage for only 50% more cost). It is pretty much the only weapon I use all game now.

(CariElf mentioned that 1.6 beta 3 has some data changes, though, so it's possible that the Beam's power has been reined in already; I'll give it a look as soon as I finish my current metaverse game.)

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.

The high research cost of missile technologies is very significant. I usually use beam weapons because I can devote more research to other technologies. Alternatively, I could choose to progress quickly along the beam weapon research path, allowing me to destroy my most powerful opponents before they can obtain the superior missile weapons. If most of the civilizations start using shields, however, I switch to missiles.

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

This is perplexing...

1. How can missiles be so overpowering, generally speaking? Did you miss some factor in the analysis?

2. ...such as defenses for example? Can you give us similar tables for different defense technologies?

3. And what is the point of mass drivers at all, generally speaking?

4. And why do you have the super weapon at a certain point in the particular branch of the tech tree? I suppose it's nice to have a primary target at a later point in the tech tree you can strive to reach, but if it's too strong then it becomes a bit pointless to research past that step in the tree. At least there should be 2-3 such points along the entire branch. This sounds even much worse than the plasma cannons in MOO2... if you almost never use the other weapons in the tech tree that sounds like failed game design.

5. Does DA bring any significant changes (rebalancing) to the choice between weapons?

Given the rock-paper-scissors, I wonder if the design idea was that basically you have the strongest tech, missiles, but when your enemy adapts to that, you switch to the second strongest, beams, and the generally weak mass drivers would be used for a real surprise when your enemy has no defense for this supposedly useless weapon technology. I would see this giving nice R/P/S play in a multiplayer game, but dunno when it's single player...

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

In all, i think the system is balanced. Missles are better but take longer to research. And i dont know what the money cost comparison is, I'll check it out next time i play, but im guessing that its also balanced. True, its not perfect but its ok by me.

I do usually like missles because i think you can get to an attack of 2 first. But in games whre its all over by year 5, the faster you can get stronger/smaller weapons online the better. Of course this is on medium difficulty which is where my current comfort level is. And in those shorter games defenses matter more so i like to research the weapons no one else is using.

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.

On your point 2. - what does speed have to do with it? AFAIK, speed is not factored into the combat model in either version of the game.

On your point 3. - I have gotten to the top of the tech tree on multiple occasions without being Evil and without ever considering the need for the Psyonic Schredder. But you are right about packing huge ships with BHGs; it rocks.

drrider

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.

Hi!

AFAIK DL lost first strike with version 1.5.


Check again the graphs on wiki. In the first graph you'll see guns s.x most of the time. The bigger the ship the more they s.x, because their sizemod is about the same as of beams, but always a point or two higher than of missiles. About the only small incentive for using guns is their lower price (second graph), but again only at specific tech breakpoints.

BR, Iztok

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.

Lets check the Dark Avatar smash-for-size ratings(higher is better):

Tiny:

Laser - 0.100
Railgun - 0.083
Stinger - 0.111

Small:

Laser - 0.091
Railgun - 0.077
Stinger - 0.111

Cargo:

Laser - 0.077
Railgun - 0.066
Stinger - 0.105

You forgot that the Stinger does twice as much damage as the 'gun and laser and has a smaller size modifier of 3% as compared to 5% for the other two. Of the 3 starter weapons, the Stinger is clearly superior.

Who cares if you can't make a tiny ship? You don't need them. Even if you have no extra tech, you have small hulls. If you have no more tech and a racial logistics bonus of 6, you can

1. Make a fleet of 2 Small Hulls armed with Stinger missiles and 2 Basic Life Supports.

2. Make a fleet of 3 Tiny Hulls, each carrying a Laser and 2 Basic Life Supports.

3. Make a fleet of 3 Tiny Hulls, each carrying a Railgun and a Basic Life Support.

If you select option 1, you get 16 hp and 4 attack for 188 bc.
If you select option 2, you get 15 hp and 3 attack for 162 bc.
If you select option 3, you get 15 hp and 3 attack(but with less range) at 129 bc.

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.

Do you use some ready-made script to parse the XML data and then import that in CSV format to your plotting program?

Hmm... varis2000 feels another re-balancing mod coming up...

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

By the way all that information in the wiki needs some tidying up, there's been lots of patches since 1.1. For example the page claims that individual ships' attack values are added up for a single fleet damage roll, and then later it claims that each individual ship does its own damage roll. (And well at least the ships are displayed individually for damage in the combat view.)