Dreadnought vs Nubian

Deuce

unread,

Jul 11, 2003, 3:24:59 PM7/11/03

to

The thread about Battlecruiser design made me think about DNs vs
Nubians.
From what I've heard, the general idea is the Nubians are the end-all
of warships. But taking a look at the DN hull, im not so sure!

The Nubian
12 x 3 General
5000 base armor
2 base initiative

Dreadnought
2x6 Weapon
2x8 Weapon
1x8 Armor
1x2 General
2x4 Electrical
2x4 Shield or Armor
2x5 Weapon or Shield
4000 base armor
10 base initiative

It just looks to me like the Dreadnought can counterdesign almost as
well as the Nubian, but with more overall slots it just packs a higher
punch.
In an initiative war, its hard to beat. If it goes with 8 BSCs, it
gets a grand total of 26, requiring *8* of the Nubian's slots to
match.
The weapon slots alone on the DN are just unbeatable. 28 dedicated
weapon slots, boostable to 33 or 38. Can't beat it in sheer firepower.
While armor isn't typically a huge factor in counter-design, the DN
does very well there too.
The DN can get up to 18 shield slots.
2 GP slots allow for more toys. Computers, jammers, deflectors..
whatever. (the only weakness I see is mechanical slots)

Am I crazy? Couldn't the DN be easily counterdesigned to kill Nubians?

James McGuigan

unread,

Jul 11, 2003, 5:17:14 PM7/11/03

to

There was a big discussion on this about 2 years ago.

In short the main problem with a DN is that you cannot add both capasitors
and deflectors to it. These have a multiplcating effect, meaning you get
very cheap armour and beam power.

DNs can pack a bigger punch, but they are quite weak in taking damage. A nub
on the other hand is quite cheap and can take a beating (with lots of
deflectors, it has a very high effective dp).

For DNs to work better than nubs, you need to make sure that the battles are
short, with only a few rounds of fire. The nub counter design is to simply
pile on the deflectors and force the DNs into a sustained firefight, for
which the DN isn't suited.

On the other hand, the one shot wonder tactic can be very powerful if you
can pull it off, and DNs work well with this. Basically this involves
designing your fleet to kill (or at least the majority off) the enemy fleet
on the first round of shooting, before he can get to shoot anything serious
back at you. DNs make great anti-chaff ships.

--
Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason,
But for those who can, rules become nothing more than guidelines,
And live their lives governed not by rules but by reason.
- James McGuigan

The Stars! FAQ (www.starsfaq.com)
Earth Emergency - A Call to Action (www.earthemergency.org)

dan neely

unread,

Jul 12, 2003, 3:53:05 PM7/12/03

to

"James McGuigan" <ja...@starsfaq.com> wrote

> On the other hand, the one shot wonder tactic can be very powerful if you
> can pull it off, and DNs work well with this. Basically this involves
> designing your fleet to kill (or at least the majority off) the enemy
fleet
> on the first round of shooting, before he can get to shoot anything
serious
> back at you. DNs make great anti-chaff ships.

One shot wonders only work against poorly deflected nubs. Any serious
beamer nub will be heavily deflected, with a minimum of 12 deflectors; once
j30s come out, 15; and after the missle stacks are largely gone, 18. W10
engine, 6 amp, 9cap, 3cps, 18 bd for the non RS version. (If your enemy is
purely beam, you can go even farther and replace the caps with deflectors
too, but IMO killing chaff 2.5x as fast is worth a 2 or 3% drop in mainline
combat if you still have missles of your own) Costs much less than a DN,
and the bds give it a 6.6x defensive boost against beams. The DNs will be
eaten allive at comprable investments.

I've never tested, but oneshot wonders might work better against RS nubs
which trade deflectors for more shields to take advantage of the typical
nubs low offensive capability. 9amp, 9cap, 9cps, 2-3bd 1-0j30. Although I
suspect that they'd still get shredded on the return shot.

Frank E

unread,

Jul 14, 2003, 2:51:41 PM7/14/03

to

On 11 Jul 2003 12:24:59 -0700, deucew...@hotmail.com (Deuce)
wrote:

>Am I crazy? Couldn't the DN be easily counterdesigned to kill Nubians?

I think there's a good arguement to be made for DNs as a missile
platform. High Init, Arms, and they pack a good punch. The only
downside is that you can't really couple them with a good, higher init
range 3 beamer design that can take out chaff and strip shields on the
first battle turn.

For Beamers, somone already mentioned the downside, lack of general
slots so you can't get 9 caps, jammers and beam deflectors on a DN.
Also, beamer nubs tend to be gateable which allows you a lot more
flexibility.

Rgds, Frank

Matt

unread,

Jul 14, 2003, 1:06:04 PM7/14/03

to

I'll bite. Why can't you couple a missile/torp DN with high init
beamers?

-Matt

Matt

unread,

Jul 14, 2003, 1:37:33 PM7/14/03

to

dan neely wrote:

> "James McGuigan" <ja...@starsfaq.com> wrote
> > On the other hand, the one shot wonder tactic can be very powerful if you
> > can pull it off,
>

> One shot wonders only work against poorly deflected nubs. Any serious
> beamer nub will be heavily deflected, with a minimum of 12 deflectors;

Yes and no. Mainly no, but if you have an over abundance of Bora compared to
Iron and Germ, a one shot fleet could make sense. Or, if you don't have Nubs
yet, and you are a HE. In a team game, my team was succesful using Amp BB's in
the oneshot role. You could call it special "desperation" tactics, but it
worked quite well. We eliminated the other teams Nub fleet quite easily, with
minimal losses.

As to using the DN in this role, it was never even considered, since the
ships wouldn't be gateable without losses. That's a deal breaker IMO.

-Matt

Joseph A Nagy Jr

unread,

Jul 14, 2003, 1:39:29 PM7/14/03

to

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:51:41 -0700, Frank E tried to be witty and
informative while writing this:
<snip>

> For Beamers, somone already mentioned the downside, lack of general slots
> so you can't get 9 caps, jammers and beam deflectors on a DN. Also, beamer
> nubs tend to be gateable which allows you a lot more flexibility.
>
> Rgds, Frank

If you play intersteller traveler, anything winds up becoming gateable. ;)

--
Joseph A Nagy Jr
http://joseph-a-nagy-jr.homelinux.org

Frank E

unread,

Jul 14, 2003, 6:32:47 PM7/14/03

to

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:06:04 -0500, Matt <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com>
wrote:

> I'll bite. Why can't you couple a missile/torp DN with high init
>beamers?

Well, I did say a _good_, high init bearmer. I end up having to put
too many nexus slots on either a DN or Nubian to out-init an 8 nexus
Arm DN. Maybe you can come up with a good design, but I can't <g>.

I just find it a lot easier with Nubians. Two slots of Nexus is enough
for an Army Nubian if you don't fight the init war (and you aren't
fighting an init war if you go that route). That gives you a
relatively flexible Beamer Nubian to mate with it:
2 slots of Nexus
3 slots of Caps
3 slots of Mega-Ds
1 slot of Sappers
...and you still have 3 slots to play with.

Rgds, Frank

Matt

unread,

Jul 14, 2003, 4:50:24 PM7/14/03

to

Frank E wrote:

> > I'll bite. Why can't you couple a missile/torp DN with high init
> >beamers?
>
> Well, I did say a _good_, high init bearmer. I end up having to put
> too many nexus slots on either a DN or Nubian to out-init an 8 nexus
> Arm DN. Maybe you can come up with a good design, but I can't <g>.

Ah. I think I see.

I just make a specialty shoot first chaff killa design. It's an
attrition unit, and I expect it to die a horrible death after it shoots
the chaff. So, given that, I don't put shields or bd's on it. Engines,
thrusters, computers, Mega D's and caps. It can kill about 160- 220 scout
chaff per shot (Depends on design). I only build them if I see scout
chaff. Frigate chaff may, or may not cause problems, it really depends on
the opponets main beam design and attractiveness. You've seen my standard
nub beam design, if I can't kill the chaff in the first round with the
specialty ship, I don't bother as it's a moot point in the second. ;-)

> I just find it a lot easier with Nubians. Two slots of Nexus is enough
> for an Army Nubian if you don't fight the init war (and you aren't
> fighting an init war if you go that route). That gives you a
> relatively flexible Beamer Nubian to mate with it:
> 2 slots of Nexus
> 3 slots of Caps
> 3 slots of Mega-Ds
> 1 slot of Sappers
> ...and you still have 3 slots to play with.

A -f could do it, of course, and 2 stacks of Nexi makes sense for an
AR, but it would be tough to do it with a normal race. Heck, I can't even
make it economical with a 4% HE! (I thought about it last game I played).
Just not enough G to build all those factories AND have high init ships
without having scads of Bora lying around. A good generalized nub design
will still win with 10-20% more nubs than you enemy (unless he is *really*
good, in which case I go to plan B). So, I try to maximize minerals, to
get that edge.

-Matt

Frank E

unread,

Jul 15, 2003, 11:53:13 AM7/15/03

to

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:50:24 -0500, Matt <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com>
wrote:

>> Well, I did say a _good_, high init bearmer. I end up having to put

>> too many nexus slots on either a DN or Nubian to out-init an 8 nexus
>> Arm DN. Maybe you can come up with a good design, but I can't <g>.
>
> Ah. I think I see.
>
> I just make a specialty shoot first chaff killa design. It's an
>attrition unit, and I expect it to die a horrible death after it shoots
>the chaff. So, given that, I don't put shields or bd's on it. Engines,
>thrusters, computers, Mega D's and caps. It can kill about 160- 220 scout
>chaff per shot (Depends on design).

For some reason, I never seem to build a specialty chaff killer. My
initial beamer nubs tend to be:
3 Mega-Ds
1 Sapper
3 Caps,
1 MJ
1 Jammer
1 Shield
2 Nexus

Maybe switch out one Mega-D or the Jammer for an extra Sapper. I build
it not because it's all that effective but because a high init, speed
2 1/2, range 3 beamer/sapper is tough to counter and I want to see
what the other side builds. Plus, no matter how they're countered,
it's a design that stays useful.

> I only build them if I see scout
>chaff. Frigate chaff may, or may not cause problems, it really depends on
>the opponets main beam design and attractiveness.

Explain please. How does it matter whether it's frigate or scout
chaff?

> A -f could do it, of course, and 2 stacks of Nexi makes sense for an
>AR, but it would be tough to do it with a normal race. Heck, I can't even
>make it economical with a 4% HE! (I thought about it last game I played).
>Just not enough G to build all those factories AND have high init ships
>without having scads of Bora lying around. A good generalized nub design
>will still win with 10-20% more nubs than you enemy (unless he is *really*
>good, in which case I go to plan B). So, I try to maximize minerals, to
>get that edge.

Note that I'm not talking about a main, front line nubian here, that's
gonna be an AMP design anyway. But if you're starting out cold wtih no
idea what your opponent is building, a fat, high init, range 3 beamer
has a lot going for it. Good skirmisher, takes out chaff, strips
shields, forces your opponent to make sure his AMP nubians have a
speed of 2 1/2...

Even for an AR or -f, it would be a waste to build this as a main
beamer design.

Rgds, Frank

dan neely

unread,

Jul 15, 2003, 4:43:44 PM7/15/03

to

"Frank E" <Fra...@hotmail.com> wrote

> For some reason, I never seem to build a specialty chaff killer. My
> initial beamer nubs tend to be:
> 3 Mega-Ds
> 1 Sapper
> 3 Caps,
> 1 MJ
> 1 Jammer
> 1 Shield
> 2 Nexus
>
> Maybe switch out one Mega-D or the Jammer for an extra Sapper. I build
> it not because it's all that effective but because a high init, speed
> 2 1/2, range 3 beamer/sapper is tough to counter and I want to see
> what the other side builds. Plus, no matter how they're countered,
> it's a design that stays useful.

easy to counterdesign even without using AMPs, and getting c26 before w26 is
IMO crazy (amp BBs eat megaD BBs for lunch)

3 MegaD
3cap
1mj
1jam
1shield
3bd

dunno why I left the jets in the design, I almost never put them on a
standard design but didn't feel like repeating the numbers with a 4th
deflector. My design is cheaper in G and resources, but even if I or B is
the limiting factor, with en18 shields and not RS, 100 of mine will take
~50% losses killing 100 of yours. With 9xAMPs if they close the range in
the 1st exchange (~50% odds) even with 1st shot you're toast after my reply.
9xAMP isn't the most efficient nonRS design either, 6xAMP (3 more bd) will
beat them in most circumstances. with resources limiting 6xamp has 168% of
the DP and 77% of the FP of the 9amp version. While resources are almost
never the limiting factor in nub construction, my experiance is that they're
a better aprox of real game situations than any single min unless your
stocks are badly unbalanced. Extreme unbalancing is possible, in one game I
was so short of I/G that when my enemies surrendered I was considering a
15AMP 0cap nub to replace my current design.

Matt

unread,

Jul 15, 2003, 10:13:20 PM7/15/03

to

Frank E wrote:

> > I only build them if I see scout
> >chaff. Frigate chaff may, or may not cause problems, it really depends on
> >the opponets main beam design and attractiveness.
>
> Explain please. How does it matter whether it's frigate or scout
> chaff?

Attractiveness is drastically different between scout and frigate chaff
[1]. The frigate chaff is much less attractive than scout, simply from the
armor and cost. So much so, that sometimes the frigate chaff is less attractive
than some high bora, poorly jammed nub, or expansive to build beam designs that
get their shields stripped.

Example from my last game, not quite max tech:

larger # = more attractive
frigate QJ5, xray ----> attract ~ .323
scout QJ5, xray ----> attract ~ 1.0
Your Nub w/shields ----> attract ~ .086
Your Nub w/o shields ---> attract ~ .165
Your Nub w/o jammers ----> attract ~ .175
Your Nub 1/2 dam w/o shields ----> attract ~ .330
Your Nub w/o Jam or shlds ----> attract ~ .333

Can you see where the frigate chaff #, and the bottom 2 example #'s kinda
make me nervous? ;-) It's happened too me...and it truly sucked.

It's really horrible in the BB era. I always laugh when I see frigate chaff
and beamer BB's together. It's like a neon sign blinking *kill me!* ;-)

> > A good generalized nub design
> >will still win with 10-20% more nubs than you enemy (unless he is *really*
> >good, in which case I go to plan B). So, I try to maximize minerals, to
> >get that edge.
>
> Note that I'm not talking about a main, front line nubian here, that's
> gonna be an AMP design anyway. But if you're starting out cold wtih no
> idea what your opponent is building, a fat, high init, range 3 beamer
> has a lot going for it.

No bd's mean that it will never be good against a well designed starter Amp
Nub that is just as light, and 2.5 speed. Not including an SD, I've only come
across 1 design set that utilizes r3 beams, and works against my standard AMP
design, IIRC.

> Good skirmisher, takes out chaff, strips
> shields, forces your opponent to make sure his AMP nubians have a
> speed of 2 1/2...

Heh, standard on my AMP designs.

> Even for an AR or -f, it would be a waste to build this as a main
> beamer design.
>

Really? what else can you do with all the Germ? Trade with others?

-Matt

[1] I can send you my recently modded calc sheet (and still unfinished in a
couple areas). It incorporates all the relevent stuff except: chaff sweep
(another utility), MPFC (packet utility), WarEval (you got it), and Battle
placement sheet(text doc).

dan neely

unread,

Jul 15, 2003, 10:39:33 PM7/15/03

to

"Matt" <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com> wrote

> It's really horrible in the BB era. I always laugh when I see frigate
chaff
> and beamer BB's together. It's like a neon sign blinking *kill me!* ;-)

jammed beamers are generally safe with FF chaff, so it really depends what
your enemy is building.

> No bd's mean that it will never be good against a well designed
starter Amp
> Nub that is just as light, and 2.5 speed. Not including an SD, I've only
come
> across 1 design set that utilizes r3 beams, and works against my standard
AMP
> design, IIRC.

that's one more than I've ever seen, what were the designs if you recall.

> > Good skirmisher, takes out chaff, strips
> > shields, forces your opponent to make sure his AMP nubians have a
> > speed of 2 1/2...
>
> Heh, standard on my AMP designs.

Unless someone's running around with 2.5 megaDs I prefer annother slot of
BDs.

> > Even for an AR or -f, it would be a waste to build this as a main
> > beamer design.
> >
>
> Really? what else can you do with all the Germ? Trade with others?

there've been times I was desperately short of G, and wallowing in the other
mins (relatively speaking it was ~2520). My nubs are generally 2/3-3/4ths
caps and BDs which suck loads of G because they're less miniturized than
other parts. This can get especially bad if I thought I was going to win in
the BB era and fed a few loads of G to the MTs.

Klaas

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 12:10:47 AM7/16/03

to

After careful consideration, Joseph A Nagy Jr muttered:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:51:41 -0700, Frank E tried to be witty and
> informative while writing this:
> <snip>
>> For Beamers, somone already mentioned the downside, lack of general
>> slots so you can't get 9 caps, jammers and beam deflectors on a DN.
>> Also, beamer nubs tend to be gateable which allows you a lot more
>> flexibility.
>>
>> Rgds, Frank
>
> If you play intersteller traveler, anything winds up becoming
> gateable. ;)
>

DNs might be difficult to build, in that case ;)

-Mike

Matt

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 1:02:50 AM7/16/03

to

dan neely wrote:

> "Matt" <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com> wrote
> > It's really horrible in the BB era. I always laugh when I see frigate
> chaff
> > and beamer BB's together. It's like a neon sign blinking *kill me!* ;-)
>
> jammed beamers are generally safe with FF chaff, so it really depends what
> your enemy is building.

Safe...yes. Horrendously inefficient, definitely. The only race able to
effectively have it's cake and eat it too, is the lowly HE. However, you have to
be willing to give up speed 2 1/4 to get to the 2.07x with 4 flux, if you want
jamming also. Depending on your fleet, though, this can be OK. Other races
*need* to have at least 6 cap's to get a decent multiplier, and that's still
only 1.77x.

Not saying this is the way to go, but there aren't to many players left that
*understand* what can happen to a unjammed design, and simply opt for straight
firepower. Sometimes, I do the same for counter designs reasons. Having scout
chaff from the get go means you never have to say "Doh!".

Cross posting from the other reply to Frank, this is where AMP BB's fall
short. There really is no logical reason to get W26 before Con26. All things
being equal, AMP BB's are a reactionary design, and as I mentioned in a earlier
post, a desperation measure against r2 Nubs. A BB has a heavier hull and will
never move last against a decent skirmish Nub like Franks'. So even though he
has no bd's and I don't consider it a great Nub vs. Nub design, with the right
orders it would decimate AMP BB's. Given that scenario, he is very right that it
is a decent first Nub. As long as he sets his orders correctly, he will get 3
shots IIRC. Further, you can throw in a variant of my chaff killa Nub, chaff,
and Missile/torp boats to easily kill any non-Nub fleet that you cross paths
with. Dooms are more than adequate in that capacity.

> > No bd's mean that it will never be good against a well designed
> starter Amp
> > Nub that is just as light, and 2.5 speed. Not including an SD, I've only
> come
> > across 1 design set that utilizes r3 beams, and works against my standard
> AMP
> > design, IIRC.
>
> that's one more than I've ever seen, what were the designs if you recall.

Totally from memory here:

3 Mega-Ds
1 Sapper
3 Caps,

1 Jammer
1 Shield
2 BD's
1 BD's or OT

I was playing a WM when I used this, so I didn't need the OT. Not sure how
much of a diff that makes atm. I think the key was maximize net damage and it
being lighter. Depending on the other ships speed, this one just stays out of
range of r2 weapons for 2-3 rounds IIRC, and then takes the last shot entirely
on the bd's/ RS shields. Also works well with a 2.5 speed missile boat with
both? orders set to disengage. Have 2 groups of chaff. One with normal orders
and the other with none/disengage. Really nasty effect, as many times my first
missile shot hits an unjammed BB instead of chaff...ouch. Double ouch if you
eventually got W26 and produce a 2 Omega stack gatable torp variant of this and
get them in the battle.

The main problem with this, is that you will lose your chaff to the
opponents beamers, since you are retreating. So, it really is dependent on if he
has missile/torps, and how many. The other problem is that you are wrapping
yourself into what I consider a inferior Nub design, for most Nub vs Nub
battles. That, and it is really *tough* to make r3 and r2 nub designs work well
together, since the best orders for each of these classes are opposite.

As far as SD designs...Well, drooping the speed of the battle by 1 means it
is much easier to accomplish this r3 sniper trick. The slower speed means that
you will probably get an extra freebie shot. That opens up the design even
further, possible trading bd's for more jammers/Mega D's/Sappers.

> > > Good skirmisher, takes out chaff, strips
> > > shields, forces your opponent to make sure his AMP nubians have a
> > > speed of 2 1/2...
> >
> > Heh, standard on my AMP designs.
>
> Unless someone's running around with 2.5 megaDs I prefer annother slot of
> BDs.

The speed isn't for running after beamers. I like to have 2.5 because it
means I can kill the missile boats 1 round sooner. Every time I have thought
about dropping it to 2, I have had battles that reminded me why that would be
bad option. Saving 50 nubs here, 200 there, because they are able to run down
missile ships sooner is a good thing. I feel beamers are attrition, but I gotta
draw the line somewhere. ;-)

> > Really? what else can you do with all the Germ? Trade with others?

>
> there've been times I was desperately short of G, and wallowing in the other
> mins (relatively speaking it was ~2520). My nubs are generally 2/3-3/4ths
> caps and BDs which suck loads of G because they're less miniturized than
> other parts. This can get especially bad if I thought I was going to win in
> the BB era and fed a few loads of G to the MTs.

Which was the point of my question on Franks 2 stacks of Nexi design.

Even with a decent mining eff, that G goes fast in the Nub era. The only
races I don't have an issue with this is -f's, AR's and 4% HE's (your favorite).
;-)

-Matt

Matt

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 8:34:55 AM7/16/03

to

Matt wrote:

> Totally from memory here:
>
> 3 Mega-Ds
> 1 Sapper
> 3 Caps,
> 1 Jammer
> 1 Shield
> 2 BD's
> 1 BD's or OT
>
> I was playing a WM when I used this, so I didn't need the OT. Not sure how
> much of a diff that makes atm. I think the key was maximize net damage and it
> being lighter

I think I missed something here. It worked, I know that. Ah, I had scoops and the
other player didn't, which is what gave me the weight advantage to always move last.
So, not the silver bullet you might have been looking for, but something to ponder,
never the less.

-Matt

Frank E

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 12:21:18 PM7/16/03

to

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:43:44 -0400, "dan neely" <dan...@pitt.edu>
wrote:

>easy to counterdesign even without using AMPs,

Well sure, in a sense that's the purpose of the design. <g>

... see my reply to Matt.

Rgds, Frank

Frank E

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 12:21:19 PM7/16/03

to

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:13:20 -0500, Matt <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com>
wrote:

>
>Frank E wrote:
> Attractiveness is drastically different between scout and frigate chaff
>[1]. The frigate chaff is much less attractive than scout, simply from the
>armor and cost. So much so, that sometimes the frigate chaff is less attractive
>than some high bora, poorly jammed nub, or expansive to build beam designs that
>get their shields stripped.
>
>Example from my last game, not quite max tech:
>
>larger # = more attractive
>frigate QJ5, xray ----> attract ~ .323
>scout QJ5, xray ----> attract ~ 1.0
>Your Nub w/shields ----> attract ~ .086
>Your Nub w/o shields ---> attract ~ .165
>Your Nub w/o jammers ----> attract ~ .175
>Your Nub 1/2 dam w/o shields ----> attract ~ .330
>Your Nub w/o Jam or shlds ----> attract ~ .333
>
> Can you see where the frigate chaff #, and the bottom 2 example #'s kinda
>make me nervous? ;-) It's happened too me...and it truly sucked.

I wonder what the attractiveness of the Thomid BCs (with Big Mutha
cannons) from our last game is on that scale. It was high enough for
my Missiles to go after those instead of scout chaff once the shields
where stripped.

>> Even for an AR or -f, it would be a waste to build this as a main
>> beamer design.
>>
>
> Really? what else can you do with all the Germ? Trade with others?

It's not really a matter of Germ, just the fact that 2 slots of Nexus
on a Beamer just seems like a waste to me. One slot maybe,two slots
and your opponent will ignore init and put those two slots to much
better use.

Two points I probably need to mention. First, I'm looking at this from
the perspective of an SD or AR, both of which gain advantages from
long range, high init, high speed designs .Well, AR doesn't really
gain an advantage but he can afford to play the high init Arm game
unlike most other races. Works really well if you have an ally
building Omega Nubs.

Second, that beamer is _always_ coupled with a 2 1/2 speed, 2 nexus
Arm Nub design. I just like the synergy between the two. From the get
go, you force your opponent to make some tough choices in his ship
designs without commiting to what type of front line beamer you decide
to build. You know without even seeing his designs that he'll have
speed 2 1/2 amps (lighter than yours), one slot of jammers and one,
probably 2 slots of shields.

... without even seeing his main fleet design, as long as those two
Nubs are my initial designs, I have a damn good shot of building a
front line, speed 2 Amp loaded with deflectors that will eat up
anything he builds. If I guess wrong and he doesn't try to counter, I
can switch and build more of the Mega-Ds and Arms. Those Mega-D will
still serve their purpose as chaff killers and shield strippers.

>[1] I can send you my recently modded calc sheet (and still unfinished in a
>couple areas). It incorporates all the relevent stuff except: chaff sweep
>(another utility), MPFC (packet utility), WarEval (you got it), and Battle
>placement sheet(text doc).

Please, I have no idea how to calculate attractiveness of ships.

Rgds, Frank

Matt

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 1:24:38 PM7/16/03

to

Frank E wrote:

> > Can you see where the frigate chaff #, and the bottom 2 example #'s kinda
> >make me nervous? ;-) It's happened too me...and it truly sucked.
>
> I wonder what the attractiveness of the Thomid BCs (with Big Mutha
> cannons) from our last game is on that scale. It was high enough for
> my Missiles to go after those instead of scout chaff once the shields
> where stripped.

Very high. No time right now to do the calc myself, but I sent my bastardized
spreadsheet. This is one of the reasons I opt for the Gatlin neutrino BC, or mix
some AMP or r2 Disrupters in. Cheap as dirt and less attractive.

>
> > Really? what else can you do with all the Germ? Trade with others?
>
> It's not really a matter of Germ, just the fact that 2 slots of Nexus
> on a Beamer just seems like a waste to me. One slot maybe,two slots
> and your opponent will ignore init and put those two slots to much
> better use.

I've used the 1 slot of Nexi version, but not often.

> Two points I probably need to mention. First, I'm looking at this from
> the perspective of an SD or AR, both of which gain advantages from
> long range, high init, high speed designs .Well, AR doesn't really
> gain an advantage but he can afford to play the high init Arm game
> unlike most other races.

I was wondering 'bout that.

> Works really well if you have an ally
> building Omega Nubs.

Swapping mins between, that could work well.

> Second, that beamer is _always_ coupled with a 2 1/2 speed, 2 nexus
> Arm Nub design. I just like the synergy between the two. From the get
> go, you force your opponent to make some tough choices in his ship
> designs without commiting to what type of front line beamer you decide
> to build.

This can definately work well, but only if you can kill the other guy's fleet
*before* your G reserves run out, and init makes up the difference. Last huge I
played this happened. I just let planets die while the other 2 players burned
through their I and G. I fought a controlled retreat, and continued expanding on
other fronts. They ran out of minerals, and quit...when I kept amassing ships.

The point is that init won't win the battle everytime where as quantity can...
So I don't go out of my way to handicap future ship production on a high G design.

> You know without even seeing his designs that he'll have
> speed 2 1/2 amps (lighter than yours), one slot of jammers and one,
> probably 2 slots of shields.

Well, you'd think so...but the last couple Huge "advanced/expert" games I've
played weren't very impressive, and neither were the player nub designs on average.
Add into the mix that players couldn't even recognize a monster, or co-operate to
take it out. Just sad.

> ... without even seeing his main fleet design, as long as those two
> Nubs are my initial designs, I have a damn good shot of building a
> front line, speed 2 Amp loaded with deflectors that will eat up
> anything he builds. If I guess wrong and he doesn't try to counter, I
> can switch and build more of the Mega-Ds and Arms. Those Mega-D will
> still serve their purpose as chaff killers and shield strippers.

Well, it's sort of like my philosophy. Make the other guy react to your design.
Send me a run down on both designs, with PRT/LRT so I can see what my initial
designs can do against it. Granted, I'm f**k*d if you can sustain the design build
over the long haul. No way I'd even attempt to counter these designs init's, I'd go
after the quantity angle.

> Please, I have no idea how to calculate attractiveness of ships.
>

Ping me via email if you have questions on the Attractiveness chart.

-Matt
L8R

Frank E

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 5:23:38 PM7/16/03

to

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:24:38 -0500, Matt <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com>
wrote:

I'll reply via e-mail when I get the chance.

What version of office do I need to read those files? I'll download em
tonight and check it out.

Rgds, Frank

Matt

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 6:01:02 PM7/16/03

to

Frank E wrote:

I use orfice 2000... I could probably convert and resend in whatever
version you have, but don't no if that would work. Can certainly try.

-Matt

dan neely

unread,

Jul 16, 2003, 10:06:37 PM7/16/03

to

"Matt" <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com> wrote

> Cross posting from the other reply to Frank, this is where AMP BB's
fall
> short. There really is no logical reason to get W26 before Con26. All
things
> being equal, AMP BB's are a reactionary design, and as I mentioned in a
earlier
> post, a desperation measure against r2 Nubs. A BB has a heavier hull and
will
> never move last against a decent skirmish Nub like Franks'. So even though
he
> has no bd's and I don't consider it a great Nub vs. Nub design, with the
right
> orders it would decimate AMP BB's. Given that scenario, he is very right
that it
> is a decent first Nub. As long as he sets his orders correctly, he will
get 3
> shots IIRC. Further, you can throw in a variant of my chaff killa Nub,
chaff,
> and Missile/torp boats to easily kill any non-Nub fleet that you cross
paths
> with. Dooms are more than adequate in that capacity.

I never intended to suggest AMP BBs as a antinub design, and never've built
them as such. What I do use them for is smashing megaD BB stacks. Use
organic armor or mostly empty slots so that they're lighter and close hte
range immediately, the carnage they inflict is devastating, with each
killing several of the enemy.

Matt

unread,

Jul 17, 2003, 2:29:31 AM7/17/03

to

dan neely wrote:

> I never intended to suggest AMP BBs as a antinub design, and never've built
> them as such.

I was reacting more to the part "... and getting c26 before w26 is
IMO crazy".

In a round about way, it sounded like you would rather get w26 and throw AMP
BB's into the mix against Nubs. My take is go for c26 after w22.

> What I do use them for is smashing megaD BB stacks. Use
> organic armor or mostly empty slots so that they're lighter and close hte
> range immediately, the carnage they inflict is devastating, with each
> killing several of the enemy.

There is no doubt that it would be ugly if the AMP BB's get to r2.

A w22 Nub would be a better counter and more viable long term, but I think I
see where you are coming from. w22 to w26 is usually easier than c16 to c26...
At least, I think that's what you are implying.

-Matt

mcv

unread,

Jul 17, 2003, 11:10:41 AM7/17/03

to

Matt <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com> wrote:
: Matt wrote:
:
:> 3 Mega-Ds

Interesting. I'm currently in a game where I'm one of the few races without
NRSE. Maybe I should build a couple of these while I wait for weap26...

mcv.

dan neely

unread,

Jul 17, 2003, 12:04:15 PM7/17/03

to

"Matt" <" mlaub"@ no_spam.visi.com> wrote

> dan neely wrote:
>
> > I never intended to suggest AMP BBs as a antinub design, and never've
built
> > them as such.
>
> I was reacting more to the part "... and getting c26 before w26 is
> IMO crazy".
>
> In a round about way, it sounded like you would rather get w26 and throw
AMP
> BB's into the mix against Nubs. My take is go for c26 after w22.

lol no. What do I look like, a newbie? :P

> > What I do use them for is smashing megaD BB stacks. Use
> > organic armor or mostly empty slots so that they're lighter and close
hte
> > range immediately, the carnage they inflict is devastating, with each
> > killing several of the enemy.
>
> There is no doubt that it would be ugly if the AMP BB's get to r2.
>
> A w22 Nub would be a better counter and more viable long term, but I
think I
> see where you are coming from. w22 to w26 is usually easier than c16 to
c26...
> At least, I think that's what you are implying.

exactly, and from my perspective it's w24-26 because I want to upgrade my
missles to the most capable version.

Clint

unread,

Jul 26, 2003, 8:10:59 AM7/26/03

to

Yea, that was what I was thinking... you may find yourself
a little short in the DN department as an IT.... however,
it does allow for interesting alliance possibilities, as i've
done...

A huge fleet of DN's that can jack rabbit all across the
universe are the be-all-end-all of all strategies.

"Klaas" <spam...@klaas.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns93BA2111...@209.98.50.131...

Russ Lewis

unread,

Jul 26, 2003, 1:16:15 PM7/26/03

to

Of course, if you have an AR providing the WM with materials, it gets
even better...

dan neely

unread,

Jul 26, 2003, 4:35:32 PM7/26/03

to

"Clint" <rattl...@computron.net> wrote

> Yea, that was what I was thinking... you may find yourself
> a little short in the DN department as an IT.... however,
> it does allow for interesting alliance possibilities, as i've
> done...
>
> A huge fleet of DN's that can jack rabbit all across the
> universe are the be-all-end-all of all strategies.

I was the IT half of a pairing once. Decive fighting didn't start till the
nub era so the benefit was reduced but getting the bigger badder missle
ships around faster was a real boost to our combat power. The strategic
paralysis it caused our enemies was the only thing that kept us alive for
the decade an a half it took us to begin fielding our own nubs in quantities
that were capable of fighting thiers effectively.

Chris Schack

unread,

Jul 30, 2003, 9:28:30 AM7/30/03

to

In article <AHyUa.28$hv2....@news.uswest.net>,

Russ Lewis <spamhole-...@deming-os.org> wrote:
>Of course, if you have an AR providing the WM with materials, it gets
>even better...

OK, there's an IT providing gates, an AR providing minerals ... maybe
add a CA to terraform planets? Classic team, all providing support
for the WM. Oh, and building nubs, probably, and transferring them
to the WM (who needs OT with that, extra slot)...

Chris Schack

Matt

unread,

Jul 31, 2003, 1:44:00 PM7/31/03

to

There are quite a few good PRT combo's for teams, but I don't like
CA's in team games. It's funner to disallow them, otherwise it is almost a
given that everyone will take one. That's boring.

There is an inherent advantage to a WM/HE combo. You have the WM
produce the missile/torp ships, and the HE provide the beamers. On Nubs,
you get up to a 2 slot advantage from the WM speed, and HE Flux advantage.
Throw in a AR, and it becomes a nasty tri, that can live anywhere if the
HE a 5-6% tri-immune, with crappy mineral settings.

I've played against several cool tri teams, but the IT/IT/AR was the
"heavy". Wow, talk about a fast start, resource giant team... They lost
out to our IS/HE/WM, simply because we could produce superior counter
designs using the WM trait, but damn it was close.

FYI- We used a 4% HE, and it worked quite well until about Y100, IIRC.
Just didn't have enough metal for 3 races by that year, since we were
never able to "take" any territory till the IT/IT/AR collapsed. The other
surviving team, SD/AR/IS, had us by the short hairs at that point. ;-)
Interestingly, the 4% HE was the #1 race when we ended the game...

-Matt

Clint

unread,

Jul 31, 2003, 8:44:36 PM7/31/03

to

> OK, there's an IT providing gates, an AR providing minerals ... maybe
> add a CA to terraform planets? Classic team, all providing support
> for the WM. Oh, and building nubs, probably, and transferring them
> to the WM (who needs OT with that, extra slot)...
>
> Chris Schack

I understand where you're all coming from, but my strategy was that the
extra mobility provided by the IT's gates would help compensate for the
mineral and resource difference.... all those remote miners you could
be slinging all about the universe instantaneously would do well toward
supplying a large DN fleet....

many nubian advocates, such as Jason Cawley for those who remember
him, base thier entire strategy on the fact that you can build so many
more nubians with the same amount of resources & minerals (though
I disproved this many months ago using the decreasing cost factors
due to tech increases.. by the time a tech level 16 wm gets to 26
and can build nubians, the DN's are cheaper than they were at tech
level 16)... however, sling a lot more minerals around with IT gates
and fleets of remote miners and you can have a real terror of a DN
fleet.

Klaas

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 12:46:08 AM8/1/03

to

After careful consideration, Matt muttered:

> There are quite a few good PRT combo's for teams, but I don't like
> CA's in team games. It's funner to disallow them, otherwise it is
> almost a given that everyone will take one. That's boring.

In the only 4+ member team game I've played in, CAs were allowed but capped
at 12% growth. Despite that restriction, three of the four teams chose to
have a CA (the last place team was the one missing the CA).

It was an interesting game, although it did prove how hugely advantageous
CAs are (the number 1 and 2 teams both were CA/AR/IS/IT).

Playing the CA on the winning team was quite fun... definately a design I'd
never consider under ordinary circumstances!

-Mike

Iztok

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 2:13:43 AM8/1/03

to

Hi!
IMO the whole debate is based around wrong premise. It compares two
hulls from a completelly different timeframes of the game. The real
comparisson should be DNs vs BBs. And here DN hull clearly wins.

A WM player that gets DN hull can stop researchig con for a some time
and invests those resources into DN based warships. He returns to
research after he conquers enough neigbours' planets/space.

Just my two cents...

BR, Iztok

mcv

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 5:59:16 AM8/1/03

to

Iztok <iztok_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Hi!

: IMO the whole debate is based around wrong premise. It compares two
: hulls from a completelly different timeframes of the game. The real
: comparisson should be DNs vs BBs. And here DN hull clearly wins.

Don't most players research con up to 13, and then focus on weapons
until that is lvl 24? Having to do con up to 16 before you can start
on weapons can cost valuable time.

And once you have weapons 24, ofcourse con 16 is the next. But shortly
after that I expect con 26 to become the goal. I've never actually
counted it, but I think in timeframes, the DN is not significantly
closer to BBs than to nubians. In combat effectiveness it is closer to
nubians, assuming you have access to IT gates.

: A WM player that gets DN hull can stop researchig con for a some time

: and invests those resources into DN based warships. He returns to
: research after he conquers enough neigbours' planets/space.

But another player can do that when he reaches BB tech.

I should point out, however, that I don't have a lot of experience with
or against WMs. In my current game, DNs showed up only just before nubians
arrived on the scene, which pretty much destroyed their usefulness.

mcv.

Clint

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 6:59:02 AM8/1/03

to

"Iztok" <iztok_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5eef0c0.03073...@posting.google.com...

> Hi!
> IMO the whole debate is based around wrong premise. It compares two
> hulls from a completelly different timeframes of the game.

yes, you are correct in one respect... except that DN's aren't available to
anybody BUT warmongers, so by the time you get to tech level 26,
everybody has nubs available but only 1 race has DN's... and the
real core of the question is this; when a WM reaches tech level 26, should
he drop all DN production in place of nub, or should he not worry about
nubs and continue producing DN's.

There is no one answer everybody agrees on, like most posers, so I guess
it's just ultimately up to the player. I alway preferred DN's, and while I
may
be wrong, I found that most people objecting to thier use are non-WM's
who are probably a little envious of what their power. DN envy? :)))

Clint

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 7:03:22 AM8/1/03

to

>
> Don't most players research con up to 13, and then focus on weapons
> until that is lvl 24? Having to do con up to 16 before you can start
> on weapons can cost valuable time.

Now that's a WHOLE different ballgame there.... choices made about
what to research what and when has been the subject of countless
threads before and there hasn't been a consensus, it mostly boils down
to what your game strategy is. Furthermore, your choice of race
should also be based on game strategy, for the matter....

>
> : A WM player that gets DN hull can stop researchig con for a some time
> : and invests those resources into DN based warships. He returns to
> : research after he conquers enough neigbours' planets/space.
>
> But another player can do that when he reaches BB tech.

Unless there is a WM that is doing it with DN's :)

>
> I should point out, however, that I don't have a lot of experience with
> or against WMs. In my current game, DNs showed up only just before nubians
> arrived on the scene, which pretty much destroyed their usefulness.
>

That was a problem on the part of the WM player..... evidently whoever
he/she/they
were, they weren't very good in resource aquisition if they reached con 16
at close to
the same time everybody else reached con 26!

unread,

Aug 3, 2003, 7:02:43 PM8/3/03

to

After careful consideration, Clint muttered:

>

>> You're being ridiculous.
>
> No, I stated an oppinion and then supported it with factual numbers.
> It's called logic.

No, you're being ridiculous. Since you snipped it, here is the factual
numbers you posted:

: Don't forget, as tech level increases beyond the minimum required,

: the costs for that item are reduced 5% (page 8-3 in your manual)...
: Thus, if you DO decide to progress to tech level 26 con, that alone
: draws a 50% reduction in what it takes to produce a DN... therefore,
: while a con 26 race with nubians will ALWAYS pay 150 in resources
: to produce a nub, if a wm continues to the same level, he'll reduce
: the cost of a DN from 275 to 138 resource points (rounding up),
: saving 12 points... that means, ship for ship, every 11th one will
: be "free"- or, put differently, while race A produces 100 nubians,
: for the same resource costs, WM race B will be able to produce
: 109 DN's.... you figure the additional firepower punch that
: the additional 9 DN's have, well, you get the picture.

You're talking hull costs only. You will not be able to produce 109 DNs
to his 100 nubians. That is ridiculous.

> The component costs account for almost the
>> entire resource cost for both beamers and missle boats, mineral costs
>> for boats, and a singificant portion of the mineral costs for
>> beamers.
>
> Correct; therefore, if you have displaced the difference in hull costs
> due to technological miniturization visa vie the 5% reduction, then
> you're mostly talking a difference in cost of the weapons systems,
> defenses, etc... and there a DN user and a nubian user pay the same
> cost (though, in the long run, DN users save $$$ because of the 25%
> cheaper weapons research benifit WM's have that no other race has)...

Obviously, if we're comparing cost, then we're talking about WM DNs vs WM
nubs.

> so, if the componant costs are the same per weapon, defense,
> computer, etc., the only thing left to consider is the firepower and
> defensive capabilities.... which are greater on a DN than a nub.

naw. Usually the weapons will be the most expensive thing you buy
(certainly true on missle boats). So you want the hull that can put the
most dp to go along with your fp. this is especially true with beamers.
You cannot make a DN beamer that will compete with a nub spending the
same about of total resources and minerals. They might make a better
missle platform, depending on how you plan to manage keeping the enemy fp
away.

I'm honestly confused as to why you think that the DN has better
defensive capabilities, though. Why is that?

-Mike

mcv

unread,

Aug 3, 2003, 8:12:29 PM8/3/03

to

Clint <rattl...@computron.net> wrote:
: The best DN design

:> will be much more powerful than the best nubian design, but also
:> much more expensive, because you're using much more expensive
:> components.
:
: Yes, but youre getting more bang for your buck because the
: costs ARE the same...

Only if you design a stupid nubian. It's the interaction between components
that counts, and for beamers, a nubian can take much better advantage of
that than a DN ever will.

: and don't forget the additional wealth

: you can throw in due to the 25% weapons savings a WM
: enjoys.

Please do forget those savings, because otherwise the WM design always wins,
no matter what it is. You could just as well say that the other guy is an
AR, and therefore has much more minerals availalble. In other words: you're
using a silly argument.

: High end beam weapons may not be as expensive as missiles,

:> but they're still a lot more expensive than capacitors, deflectors,
:> jammers and shields.
:
: You won't win many battles by overloading a nub with defensive
: weapons and nothing to throw back at the enemy, especially
: missle boat 26 tech level DN's.

Yes, but we're talking about beamers. And even against missile ships,
you can field chaff or load your nubian with jammers. Just weapons
with little defense is a waste of resources and minerals, because
they will get killed. Defensive measures are cheaper (and so are
capacitors, by the way), and will keep your cheaper ships in action
for a longer time.
Ofcourse the extreme case of the nubian with 1 slot of AMPs and the rest
filled with deflectors isn't viable as long as there are missile ships
in the game, but even a more all-round ship won't need the number of
weapons that a DN can have. You're putting all your eggs in a basket
that you know will get shot at. With missile ships this is less of a
problem because they stay more at the back and receive more protection
from chaff and beamers, while the combined effect of having a lot of
(expensive) computers and a lot of (expensive) missiles on a single ship
is bigger than on a beamer with cheap capacitors.

mcv.

Clint

unread,

Aug 5, 2003, 9:30:00 PM8/5/03

to

>
> No, you're being ridiculous.

Unfortunately you do not understand how socratic dialogue takes
place, if done correctly. When one states an oppinion, then
supports it with facts and details, he has completed his task.

When one just throws around adjectives without doing likewise,
he's just blowing hot air, such as you did.

Since you snipped it, here is the factual
> numbers you posted:

yes, I snipped it, why keep repeating the same facts over and over
and causing a logjam in the conversation, and in effect, start repeating
the same things ad nauseum?

>
> You're talking hull costs only. You will not be able to produce 109 DNs
> to his 100 nubians.

Speaking just on terms of hulls, you will be able to.... look at the
mathmatics
of it. It's simple... that was all I was referring to at that point in my
reply post.

>
> Obviously, if we're comparing cost, then we're talking about WM DNs vs WM
> nubs.
>

Last I checked in the technical reference, each ship type has a given price
that
is NOT indexed per race; that is to say, a nubian bought by a WM will cost
the
same as a nubian purchased by a CA.

I think the error in your thinking is that you are automatically including
the
resource advantage that some races have that do not have DN's available to
them;
I was talking on an equal resource bases, equal mineral basis.. that is to
say,
for X amoung of resources and Y amount of boranium, germanium, etc.....

However, a monster CA played by an advanced, experienced player will
have greater amount of resources available to him under most cases...
And since those races do not have DN's available, then it's nubs that roll
off the assembly lines. Basically, it IS a subject of interest only to WM's,
since only they can produce the DN's, so therefore you need to take
that into account.

> > so, if the componant costs are the same per weapon, defense,
> > computer, etc., the only thing left to consider is the firepower and
> > defensive capabilities.... which are greater on a DN than a nub.
>
> naw. Usually the weapons will be the most expensive thing you buy
> (certainly true on missle boats).

Exactly, so far you are correct....

So you want the hull that can put the
> most dp to go along with your fp.

Ah, you are exhibiting cognitive thought.....

this is especially true with beamers.
> You cannot make a DN beamer that will compete with a nub spending the
> same about of total resources and minerals.

OOPS, you lost it there, but 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

They might make a better
> missle platform,

they, um.... DO......... and thanks for finally making my point for me.

Clint

unread,

Aug 5, 2003, 9:33:16 PM8/5/03

to

> : and don't forget the additional wealth
> : you can throw in due to the 25% weapons savings a WM
> : enjoys.
>
> Please do forget those savings, because otherwise the WM design always
wins,
> no matter what it is.

If you don't like the fact that I use numbers, facts and details to proves
something
that you cannot make a counterargument to, do not ever tell me to just
merely
"not" do that... just don't try to have a debate with me.

Perhaps you should stick to bugs bunny cartoons and playing in the sandbox
with other children.

Deuce

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 2:23:07 AM8/6/03

to

I disagree somewhat.

1) A newer DN design is not "known and countered"

2) I believe you CAN counterdesign a DN to a Nubian. Tough, but doable
simply because of the DN's huge amount of slots.

3) A DN may only be able to mount 2 beam deflectors, but they can
mount a LOT of shields to go against beamers, and since WMs so
commonly take RS this is significant defense.

4) True, a bit heavy

5) Its only 10% less armor if you don't put any in the armor slot.

Pound for pound, a DN can outgun a Nubian, because of all the extra
slots. Sure, the ships will be expensive, but thats what you pay to
get the best. I think DNs definately have a place in the nubian era.

mcv

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 3:40:00 AM8/6/03

to

Clint <rattl...@computron.net> wrote:
:
:> : and don't forget the additional wealth

:> : you can throw in due to the 25% weapons savings a WM
:> : enjoys.
:>
:> Please do forget those savings, because otherwise the WM design always
: wins,
:> no matter what it is.
:
: If you don't like the fact that I use numbers, facts and details to proves
: something
: that you cannot make a counterargument to, do not ever tell me to just
: merely
: "not" do that... just don't try to have a debate with me.

I'm asking you not to compare apples with oranges, since I'd like to
have a rational, mature conversation with you...

: Perhaps you should stick to bugs bunny cartoons and playing in the sandbox
: with other children.

..but apparently you're not capable of that.

mcv.

Iztok

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 7:44:18 AM8/6/03

to

Hi!
> I disagree somewhat.
That's your unopposed right :-)

> 1) A newer DN design is not "known and countered"

But as you will see it's not economically to build new DN beamer if
enemy has Nub beamers.

> 2) I believe you CAN counterdesign a DN to a Nubian. Tough, but doable
> simply because of the DN's huge amount of slots.

Huge amount, but speciallized. I'll soon ask you about your
counterdesign.

> 4) True, a bit heavy

... and moves first, so opponent can exclude OT/man jets and can mount
more deflectors/shields/...

> 3) A DN may only be able to mount 2 beam deflectors, but they can
> mount a LOT of shields to go against beamers, and since WMs so
> commonly take RS this is significant defense.
>

> Pound for pound, a DN can outgun a Nubian, because of all the extra
> slots. Sure, the ships will be expensive, but thats what you pay to
> get the best. I think DNs definately have a place in the nubian era.

I'll show you that you are wrong. Let's take two fairly standard
beamer designs of DN and Nub at max tech:

Nub: 3 CPS, 6 AMP, 9 cap, 12 deflec, 6 jammers 30, IS-10 engine.
Costs: 132/144/129/504
Properties: 1.5k shields, 5k armor, 88% jammed, deflects 68% of beam
damage, firepower 6.1k, mass 217, moves and shoots last.

DN: 18 CPS, 28 AMP, 6 cap, 4 jammers 30, IS-10 engine.
Costs: 303/544/297/1233
Properties: 9k shields, 4.5k armor, 76% jammed, 0 deflected, FP 21.5k,
mass 459, moves and shoots first.

Looking just at the costs you can buy about 2.5 Nubs for one DN, thus
increasing Nub properties to: 3.7k shields, 12.5k armor and 15.3k FP.
Here we already have 16k defenses compared to 13.5k and 73% of FP of
DN.
Unfortunatelly for DN lovers the story doesn't end here.

An Armaggedon missile, backed with 9 Nexus computers will have an
accuracy of 38% on Nub and 47% on DN, so 30% more missiles will hit
only 4.5k of a single DN (remember, we have 2.5*5k on Nubs). And the
story still doesn't end.

It is true DN will fire first. But its AMPs will be 68% deflected
doing only 6,8k damage to Nubs, destroying all shields and doing 3.1k
damage to the stack. Then Nubs will fire back and will destroy our DN
with the first shoot and there will be still 2k "unspent" damage.

Now I'll ask you how to counter a so simple Nub with your DN? If you
go for 8 caps/2 jammers it will deal 10k damage (again not enough for
kills), but missiles will kill your DN throgh full shields. If you
replace one stack of shields with sappers you'll deal 8.7k damage -
still not enough to kill a single Nub.

If our WM has RS LRT then his shields increase to 12.6k, but his Nub
should be also designed accordingly: instead 3 CPS he should put in 6,
and exclude one stack of jammers. So a single Nub now has 4.2k
shields, 10.5k in a stack of 2.5.

When we put both designs against each other the DN with sappers will
remove 8.7k shields, leaving 1.8k. Then Nubs will fire back removing
all shields and dealing 2.7k damage to DN's armor (we'll neglect the
fact that in bigger stacks some DNs may get killed). In second round
shields on Nubs will regen to 2.8 and when DN shoots at them it will
kill one Nub and will die in return fire.

And here we are. Beamer DN's can not compete with beamer Nubs. DN is a
good missile platform, so it may be still used for that in Nub era.
But it just doesn't have enough defenses to be used against beamer
Nubs cost-effectively.

BR, Iztok

Edward

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 1:32:01 PM8/6/03

to

But who puts jammers on a beam nub when you are playing with chaff? At
most a nub stack would get hit once, and they can definitly sustain 1
missile hit.

Clint

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 7:38:43 PM8/6/03

to

> I'm asking you not to compare apples with oranges,

um, I didn't

since I'd like to
> have a rational, mature conversation with you...

I tried, using numbers, facts and mathmatics. All you could
come up with was adjectives like "silly" and "rediculous".
It was my fault, I'm use to more educated dialogue and
debate and not insults like that.. so I returned on to you,
in kind, figuring that was what you wanted and needed,
and proceeded on into the real world.

Enjoy your sandbox little boy.

Clint

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 7:41:33 PM8/6/03

to

I agree with most of your assertions.... especially the ones
regarding beam deflectors.

Stars! is a game like many others where feelings and
emotions get too involved, sometimes, and people start
arguing out of thier hearts and not thier minds; fact is,
many people prefer to play other races than WM and
I have found it's often a DN envy at work when they
begin to start trashing them... self-justification for
thier PRT choices, in part... kinda along the lines of
"well, i'm GLAD i can't have one of those, BECAUSE
<insert unsupported assertion here to calm one's soul>.

--
Facts are to socialists as crosses are to vampires.
"

Klaas

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 8:12:52 PM8/6/03

to

After careful consideration, Clint muttered:

>> No, you're being ridiculous.

>
> Unfortunately you do not understand how socratic dialogue takes
> place, if done correctly. When one states an oppinion, then
> supports it with facts and details, he has completed his task.

I understand quite correctly. For an example, see

<news:b5eef0c0.03080...@posting.google.com>

which uses facts and details to indicate why nubs are better beamers.

> When one just throws around adjectives without doing likewise,
> he's just blowing hot air, such as you did.

Interesting assertion, considering your tactic, when rebutted, is to
stoop to condescending superciliousness. The examples in this thread
grow by the day. The sad thing about that tactic is that it actually
works on people who don't know better.

> Since you snipped it, here is the factual
>> numbers you posted:
>
> yes, I snipped it, why keep repeating the same facts over and over
> and causing a logjam in the conversation, and in effect, start
> repeating the same things ad nauseum?

Oh, better to levy torrents of jibes at people who try to indicate faults
in your argument?

>> You're talking hull costs only. You will not be able to produce 109
>> DNs to his 100 nubians.
>
> Speaking just on terms of hulls, you will be able to.... look at the
> mathmatics
> of it. It's simple... that was all I was referring to at that point in
> my reply post.

Certainly the mathematics are simple. But you explicitly stated that you
were talking about ships, not hulls:

[ snip that DN hull is 12 resources cheaper than a nub hull]
: that means, ship for ship, every 11th one will

: be "free"- or, put differently, while race A produces 100 nubians,
: for the same resource costs, WM race B will be able to produce
: 109 DN's.... you figure the additional firepower punch that
: the additional 9 DN's have, well, you get the picture.

I've already pointed out the irrelevancy of this statement which you
claim is a "fact" that supports your argument that DNs are superior. You
state that you're familiar with educated dialog. If that is true, you
would realize that a large part of it is being able to admit
incorrectness, particularly in method. You are simply unable to admit
that you are wrong on a small point because you believe that would be
admitting fault with the larger point.

>> Obviously, if we're comparing cost, then we're talking about WM DNs
>> vs WM nubs.
>>
> Last I checked in the technical reference, each ship type has a given
> price that
> is NOT indexed per race; that is to say, a nubian bought by a WM will
> cost the
> same as a nubian purchased by a CA.

Still you don't understand that the "ship type" (ie hull) cost is not
relevant save for its contribution to the total cost, which /is/ relevant
and does vary.

> I think the error in your thinking is that you are automatically
> including the
> resource advantage that some races have that do not have DN's
> available to them;
> I was talking on an equal resource bases, equal mineral basis.. that
> is to say,
> for X amoung of resources and Y amount of boranium, germanium,
> etc.....

Precisely. By what other basis is a comparison meaningful? The
evaluation of a DN hull wrt the nub in terms of its warfighting ability
is only useful when considering the choices of warships available to a
WM. Ie. for X amount of resources, Y amount of minerals, which among the
DN or nub would make a better ship to buy with those fixed resources?
Both will get the 25% weapons discount.

> However, a monster CA played by an advanced, experienced player will
> have greater amount of resources available to him under most cases...
> And since those races do not have DN's available, then it's nubs that
> roll off the assembly lines. Basically, it IS a subject of interest
> only to WM's, since only they can produce the DN's, so therefore you
> need to take that into account.

No, since only they can produce DNs, only they have the choice, so the
bonus applies in both cases, thus shouldn't be held as an advantage to
DN.

> Ah, you are exhibiting cognitive thought.....

I'm surprised you recognize a concept so foreign to you.

> this is especially true with beamers.
>> You cannot make a DN beamer that will compete with a nub spending the
>> same about of total resources and minerals.
>
> OOPS, you lost it there, but 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

If you want to discuss it, lets. Give your favorite beamer DN design and
we'll see how it compares.

> They might make a better
>> missle platform,
>
> they, um.... DO......... and thanks for finally making my point for
> me.

My point isn't that that is your conclusion is necessarily wrong, but
that your supporting evidence is that WMs have 25% cheaper weapons, and
they can produce 109 DN hulls for every 100 nub hulls. The first is
irrelevant to the discussion, the second only marginally. If you have
any real data to add, do so.

-Mike

Klaas

unread,

Aug 6, 2003, 8:20:36 PM8/6/03

to

After careful consideration, Edward muttered:

> Iztok wrote:
>>eamer DN's can not compete with beamer Nubs. DN is a
>> good missile platform, so it may be still used for that in Nub era.
>> But it just doesn't have enough defenses to be used against beamer
>> Nubs cost-effectively.
>>
>> BR, Iztok
>
> But who puts jammers on a beam nub when you are playing with chaff? At
> most a nub stack would get hit once, and they can definitly sustain 1
> missile hit.
>

I find at least one stack of jammers invaluable if you want any mobility
at all. Chaff are nice, but can be countered, vuln to minefields, are
slow, gas guzzlers, and I don't want my fleets unduly constrained (esp
with a lot of hit and run attacks)

-Mike

Iztok

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 1:56:25 AM8/7/03

to

Hi!

> But who puts jammers on a beam nub when you are playing with chaff? At
> most a nub stack would get hit once, and they can definitly sustain 1
> missile hit.

It's an early Nub design, when your opponens still have many missile
ships. And chaff gets eaten rather fast, especially if your opponents
are using a "the-first-and-the-only-shoot" chaff-killing DNs/BBs. R2
beamers can not shoot at retreating missile ships before third round
of battle, so some protection also helps a lot. And WM's chaff has a
bad habit of moving 2 squares in the first round, thus coming in range
of opponent's standard R2/2+ movement beamers :-(

BR, Iztok

mcv

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 2:12:07 AM8/7/03

to

Klaas <spam...@klaas.ca> wrote:
: After careful consideration, Clint muttered:
:
:> However, a monster CA played by an advanced, experienced player will

:> have greater amount of resources available to him under most cases...
:> And since those races do not have DN's available, then it's nubs that
:> roll off the assembly lines. Basically, it IS a subject of interest
:> only to WM's, since only they can produce the DN's, so therefore you
:> need to take that into account.
:
: No, since only they can produce DNs, only they have the choice, so the
: bonus applies in both cases, thus shouldn't be held as an advantage to
: DN.

I just realised what Clint means here. Because you tend to put a lot
more weapons on a DN than on a nubian, the high cost of weapons compared
to other components makes it less of a disadvantage to use an overdose
of weapons. For a WM, the difference in cost between weapons and other
components isn't quite as big as for other races, making additional
weapons a more viable choice.

Clint doesn't exlain it very well, but it is a point.

The difference in cost is still pretty big though, so I'm still not
convinced that additional weapons are viable enough, which is necessary
to make DNs better than nubians. I'd have to see a battle where DNs
defeated an equal cost of well-designed nubians.

mcv.

Iztok

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 6:55:19 AM8/7/03

to

Hi!
> ... fact is,

> many people prefer to play other races than WM and
> I have found it's often a DN envy at work when they
> begin to start trashing them... self-justification for
> thier PRT choices, in part... kinda along the lines of
> "well, i'm GLAD i can't have one of those, BECAUSE
> <insert unsupported assertion here to calm one's soul>.

I admit I'm missing DN hull when playing other races. I've played WM
once and only then I realized what a wonderfull hull a DN is, when
compared to BB. The game was in small universe with some weird
settings (check RGCS for "Well's Bottom"). I've been fighting the lead
monster that had twice the number of planets and almost three times my
economy. He started building Doom and Disruptor BBs much earlier so I
had the chance to counterdesign his both designs with a DN with 28
Mark4 blasters, 5 tech 15 sappers, 13 Bear shields, 8 organic armors,
4 capac's, 4 jammers 20, 2 BSCs and IS-10 engines, coupled with a lot
of chaff. It had init 21 (just one more that Doom BBs, and 3 more than
Disruptor BBs), enough jamming to be less attractive than chaff even
without shields, enough FP to kill 85% of opponent's BBs in the stack
of the same size, and enough shields&armor to kill a Disruptor BB in 1
on 1 fight.
The turn when I went after his attacking fleet of 85 Doom and 60
Disruptor BBs (about 2/3 of all his BBs) with my 130 DNs and 4k chaff
was the most anxiously expected in all my games. That single battle
should decide the game winner, and it did. I've lost about half of
chaff, he lost everything but some SFXes and empty LFs. The rest of
the game was just a mater of execution.

With a BB I just couldn't include all that needed features in a single
ship hull, so I can repeat again: DNs rule (until Nubs come out :-).

BR, Iztok

Deuce

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 1:27:04 PM8/7/03

to

<snip>

>> I'll show you that you are wrong. Let's take two fairly standard
> beamer designs of DN and Nub at max tech:

Here's where you fall into a trap right from the start. Max tech, and
pre-designed ships.... and beamers only. You also didn't put any
deflectors on the dreadnought at all!

The added deflector ability for the Nubian may make them a better
beamer vs beamer ship... but dreadnoughts definately make better
missile ships. A well-computed missile ship could break through even
the 6 jammer 30's and do the "first shot, only shot" situation. A DN
would get two free shots on the Nub. Only after surviving two huge
missile volleys would the beamer be able to fire. When that happens,
they still have to deal with the DNs shields. each has 50% more
shields than the Nub has firepower, so taking the stack down much on
the first shot would be difficult, so you'd probably get a third
missile volley.

Sure the DN would end up expensive, but you take expensive ships when
they obliterate the enemy, don't you? :)

My point is that a dreadnought can counter-design a specific enemy
ship with little trouble. It's easy to say the DN would lose if you
just assume the Nub is built to counter the DN. That's what a
counterdesign is for!

Clint

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 8:18:43 PM8/7/03

to

They make uncomparable missle boats, for sure... and if you are
using a mixed fleet (which you better), you can't do any better
than to have a large handfull hanging out in the background
slinging arms' at the other side. One arm barrage or two
from a squad of DN's is nasty!

--
Facts are to socialists as crosses are to vampires.

"Iztok" <iztok_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:b5eef0c0.03080...@posting.google.com...

Clint

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 8:21:07 PM8/7/03

to

I see you use google searches.. well, i'll only play this ping-pong
game back and forth with you this last time.

Check THIS site out; it's proof that you can use a misinterpreted
or totally twisted and innaccurate google search to prove ANYTHING...

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

So much for your google proof.

Klaas

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 8:52:16 PM8/7/03

to

After careful consideration, Clint muttered:

> I see you use google searches.. well, i'll only play this ping-pong

> game back and forth with you this last time.
>
> Check THIS site out; it's proof that you can use a misinterpreted
> or totally twisted and innaccurate google search to prove ANYTHING...
>
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
>
> So much for your google proof.

My google proof? I provided a link to an article in this thread, for your
perusal. Incidently, what does the method of finding a reference have to
do with its validity?

-Mike

Klaas

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 9:12:24 PM8/7/03

to

After careful consideration, mcv muttered:

> Klaas <spam...@klaas.ca> wrote:
>
> I just realised what Clint means here. Because you tend to put a lot
> more weapons on a DN than on a nubian, the high cost of weapons
> compared to other components makes it less of a disadvantage to use an
> overdose of weapons. For a WM, the difference in cost between weapons
> and other components isn't quite as big as for other races, making
> additional weapons a more viable choice.
>
> Clint doesn't exlain it very well, but it is a point.
>
> The difference in cost is still pretty big though, so I'm still not
> convinced that additional weapons are viable enough, which is
> necessary to make DNs better than nubians. I'd have to see a battle
> where DNs defeated an equal cost of well-designed nubians.

That is a more interesting point. However, it's not only weapons that
have to be purchased in greater quantity to use DNs, it's also shields
(rather than caps). That would partially outweigh the 25% savings.

-Mike

Klaas

unread,

Aug 7, 2003, 9:12:36 PM8/7/03

to

After careful consideration, Deuce muttered:

> <snip>
>
>>> I'll show you that you are wrong. Let's take two fairly standard
>> beamer designs of DN and Nub at max tech:
>
> Here's where you fall into a trap right from the start. Max tech, and
> pre-designed ships.... and beamers only. You also didn't put any
> deflectors on the dreadnought at all!

You'd have to sacrifice jamming quite significantly for that, I'd reckon.
You have a point in that there is no single test which will decree the
supremacy of one hull or the other. Clearly both are stronger or weaker
at certain purposes, and it is the need at a specific time in a game for
those purposes that dictates what should be used, not an arbitrary ruling
that one is "better".

And why not do the calculation with max tech? If you have nubians, you
have weap 26, and aren't far off from CPS.

> The added deflector ability for the Nubian may make them a better
> beamer vs beamer ship... but dreadnoughts definately make better
> missile ships. A well-computed missile ship could break through even
> the 6 jammer 30's and do the "first shot, only shot" situation. A DN
> would get two free shots on the Nub. Only after surviving two huge
> missile volleys would the beamer be able to fire. When that happens,
> they still have to deal with the DNs shields. each has 50% more
> shields than the Nub has firepower, so taking the stack down much on
> the first shot would be difficult, so you'd probably get a third
> missile volley.

The effect of computers dwindles quite rapidly, and before countering
jamming, if I'm not mistaken. Beyond a certain point, more computer does
little to offset good jamming.

> Sure the DN would end up expensive, but you take expensive ships when
> they obliterate the enemy, don't you? :)

Well, clearly an Arm DN is going to crush a beamer nub. If you want to
compare the two, pit a group of Arm DNs against an equal-cost group of
nub beamers and chaff. This type of comparison is quite difficult,
though, since the mineral/resource ratio is so much higher for missle
boats.

> My point is that a dreadnought can counter-design a specific enemy
> ship with little trouble. It's easy to say the DN would lose if you
> just assume the Nub is built to counter the DN. That's what a
> counterdesign is for!

But the nub wasn't a specific counter design... that would have been 0
jammers, more deflectors (even replacing caps). Prolly another stack of
shields. Other factors: a cheaper engine would weigh in the nubian's
favour (since nubs have a higher #engine to fp/dp ratio)

-Mike

Iztok

unread,

Aug 8, 2003, 3:31:37 AM8/8/03

to

Hi!

> They make uncomparable missle boats, for sure... and if you are

> using a mixed fleet (which you better), ...
I'd like to, but belive me or not I DIDN'T HAVE JUGGS at that time.
Mark4 blasters offered much more FP AND ships then Jihads at 42%
accuracy. It was a slow tech game with weap mandatory expensive and no
tech trade. I've been skirmishing and invading our big monster, but I
got only 1 level in bio and 3 levels in prop, no weap :-( My weap
level was 15 when I started building my DNs.
BR, Iztok

mcv

unread,

Aug 8, 2003, 4:36:55 PM8/8/03

to

Deuce <deucew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: The added deflector ability for the Nubian may make them a better

: beamer vs beamer ship... but dreadnoughts definately make better
: missile ships.

I don't think anyone was disputing that DNs make good missiles ships.
(Although I seem to recall a discussion from a year ago or something
which I think ended with the conclusion that even missile DNs are
only viable when you have BET. I'm not going to defend that position
here, but nobody in that discussion seemed to doubt the nubian's
superiority as a beamer.)

: A well-computed missile ship could break through even

: the 6 jammer 30's and do the "first shot, only shot" situation.

Could it? You can get at best 40% accuracy. Assuming the nubian is shielded,
a missile does on average 40% of 525 = 210 damage to armour and shields
together. At max tech, each ARM missile costs a total of 92 in minerals
and resources. A random nubian from a game I'm currently in, not designed
to encounter DNs at all, costs 1241 total and has 5900 hitpoints. Clearly,
there's no way DNs can ever get a one turn kill against an equal cost of
nubians. Note that I didn't even count the cost for the DN hull, computers,
engines and defensive measures.

Ofcourse in a real game, if missiles are present, chaff will be there too,
and the real battle will be fought between beamers.

: Sure the DN would end up expensive, but you take expensive ships when

: they obliterate the enemy, don't you? :)

Please do make sure your testing against an equal value of opponents,
unless your point is that superior force wins the battle, but that's
hardly a relevant point.

: My point is that a dreadnought can counter-design a specific enemy

: ship with little trouble. It's easy to say the DN would lose if you
: just assume the Nub is built to counter the DN. That's what a
: counterdesign is for!

I'd like to see this tested. Maybe someone from the nubian camp should
design a nubian, show the design here, and then someone from the DN
camp can try to counter design a beamer (because we were talking about
beamers here) which will be tested against an equal value of ships with
the nubian design.

That should settle this.

mcv.

mcv

unread,

Aug 8, 2003, 4:44:32 PM8/8/03

to

Clint <rattl...@computron.net> wrote:
:
: Stars! is a game like many others where feelings and

: emotions get too involved, sometimes, and people start
: arguing out of thier hearts and not thier minds; fact is,
: many people prefer to play other races than WM and
: I have found it's often a DN envy at work when they
: begin to start trashing them... self-justification for
: thier PRT choices, in part... kinda along the lines of
: "well, i'm GLAD i can't have one of those, BECAUSE
: <insert unsupported assertion here to calm one's soul>.

I've actually never been in a game where a WM was very effective,
so I doubt it's envy in my case. That said, the DN is definitely
and excellent hull, it's just that the nubian is better. At least
for beamers.

Now if I were envious of WMs, it would be because of the Battle Cruiser.
I often fight my first wars with cruisers, and the BC is just so much
better than a normal CC, it's not funny anymore. I've heard people
claim that BC's are close to BBs in effectivity, and I wouldn't be
surprised if that were true.

mcv.

Clint

unread,

Aug 10, 2003, 8:26:07 AM8/10/03

to

That said, the DN is definitely
> and excellent hull, it's just that the nubian is better. At least
> for beamers.
>

That's a big qualifier you put at the end, and therein resides
the greatest amount of truth... it is left up to debate as to
whether or not nubs are better than DN's for beamers, but
playing my own devil's advocate i'll say okay, perhaps they
are, but you'd better beware of the experienced WM you
go up against who slings a bucket load of misery your way
in the form of arm DN's.

Öö Tiib

unread,

Aug 17, 2003, 10:13:58 AM8/17/03

to

"Clint" <rattl...@computron.net> wrote in message news:<vj34gho...@corp.supernews.com>...

Is it really so hard to explain to you that the 25% cheaper weapons
that WM enjoys so lot have no point in it when 2 WM-s fight with each
other?!?

Imagine a situation where i play WM and you play equally powerful WM
and you limit yourself to dreads when i build nubs too. These people
here tell you that you lose to me and should reconsider your
calculations and forget that 25% for a second because it is
irrelevant.

You call them little boys etc you are The Mathematician. Lets say we
both got 80Mt of Iron, 100Mt of Bora and 50Mt of Germ. Regen shields.
Max tech. So please describe a dread fleet you build for that. WM
Dread fleet that My WM AMP nubs + 1000 chaff built from same minerals
cannot eat alive with minor losses?

Öö Tiib

Clint

unread,

Aug 19, 2003, 3:43:04 PM8/19/03

to

Well, GENIUS, I thought it was implied that the PRT's that
they were discussing weren't not WM, but other ones
where DN's were restricted. Whether or not I disagree with
your numbers is another matter, but on your first insolent
and self-gratifying post remark, I wasn't operating under
the ospices that they were going to use a WM too.

I guess I forgot to attend those wonderful ESP classes
that you obviously did.

--
--
Facts are to socialists what crosses are to vampires.
--
"嘱 Tiib" <oot...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:f0341633.03081...@posting.google.com...

> 嘱 Tiib

Öö Tiib

unread,

Aug 20, 2003, 1:26:36 PM8/20/03

to

"Clint" <rattl...@computron.net> wrote...

> Well, GENIUS, I thought it was implied that the PRT's that
> they were discussing weren't not WM, but other ones
> where DN's were restricted. Whether or not I disagree with
> your numbers is another matter, but on your first insolent
> and self-gratifying post remark, I wasn't operating under
> the ospices that they were going to use a WM too.

So okay, Logician, you thought wrong. If someone is arguing if dread
is better or nub is better they obviously compare them from
perspective of race who can build both. For other PRT-s that argument
just does not matter. So what ... dread is better or is not ... they
cannot build it anyway?

> I guess I forgot to attend those wonderful ESP classes
> that you obviously did.

Dunno what is ESP ... extrasensory perception, electronic scholary
publishing or electronic software providing. But whatever it is go
ahead and attend these classes but do not forget to think also.

嘱 Tiib

Clint

unread,

Aug 21, 2003, 11:10:34 PM8/21/03

to

Did your parents have any kids that LIVED?

James McGuigan

unread,

Aug 21, 2003, 11:51:01 PM8/21/03

to

Clint wrote:

> Did your parents have any kids that LIVED?

Arguing on Usenet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you
win, you're still retarded :-)

PS. no offense intended to those who actually have physical impairments.

--
Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason,
But for those who can, rules become nothing more than guidelines,
And live their lives governed not by rules but by reason.
- James McGuigan

The Stars! FAQ (www.starsfaq.com)
Earth Emergency - A Call to Action (www.earthemergency.org)

Clint

unread,

Aug 22, 2003, 6:33:29 AM8/22/03

to

>
> Arguing on Usenet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you
> win, you're still retarded :-)
>
>
> PS. no offense intended to those who actually have physical impairments.
>

yes and you know what, I actually feel retarted to a degree because, after
all these years, I have come to realize it is futile, real folly, to try....
you get
the most extreme of nut cases on here that or either so deluded in thier
(mis)conceptions or so vulgar and offensive because they're simply trouble
makers that no real exhange of ideals or dialogue will ever take place
between
the vast majority of them.

*sigh* it takes all kinds to make the world go around, I suppose. This is
also irrefutable proof that gaurdian angels exist and watch over "special"
people like Oo tiib, because other wise, there is no way they'd make it
past the age of 5 without either seriously mauling & injuring themselves
or outright killing themselves.

mcv

unread,

Aug 22, 2003, 8:36:08 AM8/22/03

to

Clint <rattl...@computron.net> wrote:
:
: yes and you know what, I actually feel retarted to a degree because, after

: all these years, I have come to realize it is futile, real folly, to try....
: you get
: the most extreme of nut cases on here that or either so deluded in thier
: (mis)conceptions or so vulgar and offensive because they're simply trouble
: makers that no real exhange of ideals or dialogue will ever take place
: between
: the vast majority of them.

No kidding.

: *sigh* it takes all kinds to make the world go around, I suppose. This is

: also irrefutable proof that gaurdian angels exist and watch over "special"
: people like Oo tiib, because other wise, there is no way they'd make it
: past the age of 5 without either seriously mauling & injuring themselves
: or outright killing themselves.

But now you're a bit confused.

mcv.