Movement formula wrong?
U_F_O
I thing I read something about that before but did not find it.
It appears to me that the movement formula indicated in the help file is
wrong:
M=(Ideal_Speed-4)/4-Weight/70/4/Number_of_Engines+0,25*M_Jets+0,5*Overthruster
I get completely weird results - yes, I know about the
addition/substraction and divisioin/multiplication rule.
Maybe somebody has some useful suggestions.
Furthermore, the gattling gun and its little sister (for IS only) - are
they of any use. Looks to me they are quite weak and have a short range.
On the other hand they hit _each_ target in range.
Last thing - as newbie I am working through the ship designs. Are there
any useful rules of thumb concerning armor vs. shields and what about
the weight vs. movement issue?
Thanx
Bennett
>Hi all,
>
>I thing I read something about that before but did not find it.
>
>It appears to me that the movement formula indicated in the help file is
>wrong:
>M=(Ideal_Speed-4)/4-Weight/70/4/Number_of_Engines+0,25*M_Jets+0,5*Overthrus
ter
>
>I get completely weird results - yes, I know about the
>addition/substraction and divisioin/multiplication rule.
So did I, but I can't remember how, and if, I sorted it out. Maybe its...
M=(Ideal_Speed-4)/(4-Weight/70/4/Number_of_Engines)+0,25*M_Jets+0,5*Overthru
ster
(note the added brackets)
I dunno, haven't got time to check right now.
>
>Maybe somebody has some useful suggestions.
>
>Furthermore, the gattling gun and its little sister (for IS only) - are
>they of any use. Looks to me they are quite weak and have a short range.
>On the other hand they hit _each_ target in range.
Yes, I was on the receiving end of some gatling destroyers earlier in my
current game. If your ships aren't stacked, or you have several different
designs at the battle, then _each_ stack is hit for the same damage,
effectively doubling or tripling the damage inflicted. Range 2 isn't all
that bad if your ships are fast enough (ie faster than their targets!) and
they are pretty good at sweeping. Stick a few on a frigate and use it for
skirmishing with scouts/freighter runs/colonisers, and keeping your own
territory free of enemy minefields.
>
>Last thing - as newbie I am working through the ship designs. Are there
>any useful rules of thumb concerning armor vs. shields and what about
>the weight vs. movement issue?
>
>Thanx
>
Well, I try to get a good shield/armour balance, but most designs are
limited to using as much as possible. The exceptions are, IMHO: cruisers
with weak (wolverine) shields, use three instead of two maybe, Beamer BB's
where you use less armour to get the battle speed up. Cruisers have plenty
of base armour so more isn't as useful as shielding. A cheap early ship is
a destroyer with no armour and a shield in the general slot up front, or use
organic/carbonic armour which is light and cheap. These are good in the
horde approach to attack.
As regards movement, I try to get all beamers at least speed 2, 2+1/4 if
possible, and the torps maybe 1+1/4, although if it came to the crunch on
putting a jet or thruster on instead of a jammer or computer, I'd probably
go for the slower, more powerful ship. The weight/movement thing is usually
very close in the early part of the game, but can figure in the mid/late
game. If your ships have less range for instance (beamers say) against Arm
BB's, then having a lighter ship will mean that the enemy will first move to
_their_ ideal position relative to you, and your ships then move to _their_
ideal position. Using shields instead of armour (where possible and
desireable) can help here.
Hope this is helpful, I'm off to work now!!
Cheers
Bennett
Scoop
>
> Hi all,
>
> I thing I read something about that before but did not find it.
>
> It appears to me that the movement formula indicated in the help file is
> wrong:
> M=(Ideal_Speed-4)/4-Weight/70/4/Number_of_Engines+0,25*M_Jets+0,5*Overthruster
>
> I get completely weird results - yes, I know about the
> addition/substraction and divisioin/multiplication rule.
>
>
No, sorry. But I can confirm that the formula in the help file is
wrong.
> Furthermore, the gattling gun and its little sister (for IS only) - are
> they of any use. Looks to me they are quite weak and have a short range.
> On the other hand they hit _each_ target in range.
>
Don't forget that these are much better at minesweeping, too, than
beamers near the same tech level.
> Last thing - as newbie I am working through the ship designs. Are there
> any useful rules of thumb concerning armor vs. shields
Key thing to remember is that shields stack and armor doesn't.
> and what about
> the weight vs. movement issue?
>
One of the most important points here is that the lighter ship moves
last, so when you are designing a ship, build a lighter one with greater
range than the enemy ship, so that it can move out of range of the
enenmy fire but still continue to shoot. You see this effect very often
when the range 0 weapons are being used. If you make your range 0 ship
too heavy, while it may reach the target, a lighter target will always
jump out of range before the range 0 ship can fire, making the range 0
ship essentially worthless in that situation - except as expensive
chaff, maybe.
Scoop
Stefan U_F_O
Thanx Scoop and Bennet for the replies
>Key thing to remember is that shields stack and armor doesn't.
Ok, a group of ships share the same pool of shields. Does this mean,
when they split off on the battle board they loose this advantage or
do they keep it? The idea would be to build some really good shielded
Super-X ships which would cover the other battleships on the board.
But that sounds a little bit weird to me.
>
>> and what about
>> the weight vs. movement issue?
>>
>One of the most important points here is that the lighter ship moves
>last, so when you are designing a ship, build a lighter one with greater
>range than the enemy ship, so that it can move out of range of the
>enenmy fire but still continue to shoot. You see this effect very often
>when the range 0 weapons are being used. If you make your range 0 ship
>too heavy, while it may reach the target, a lighter target will always
>jump out of range before the range 0 ship can fire, making the range 0
>ship essentially worthless in that situation - except as expensive
>chaff, maybe.
>
>Scoop
The use of range 0 ships not really clear to me. They have to be fast
to get to range 0, they have to be well armoured to survive the first
shots from the other side. The only idea I've got is to build a enough
of them to share the shields long enough until the other guy is _dead_
:-) But isn't that expensive? I think they would need a movement of 2
at least.
Stefan
jason...@my-dejanews.com
U_F_O <h910...@obelix.antispam.wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> It appears to me that the movement formula indicated in the help file is
> wrong:
> M=(Ideal_Speed-4)/4-Weight/70/4/Number_of_Engines+0,25*M_Jets+0,5*Overthruster
>
> I get completely weird results - yes, I know about the
> addition/substraction and divisioin/multiplication rule.
Well I will explain not the help file but stars battle speed :-) (I do think
it is not wrong but confusing rather, BTW...)
A warp 6 engine gives speed 1. Higher and lower warps raise or lower that by
1/4 of a movement point for each warp.
Then, weight reduces the speed. The rule here is - up to 69 kt of weight *per
engine* can be moved around without loss of battlespeed. At 70kt per engine,
140 kt per engine, etc, the battle speed drops 1/4 for each such weight
increment. So the first speed loss comes at 70 kt for a DD, 140 kt for a
cruiser, 280 kt for a battleship. The second one at twice those figures, etc.
Next, each jet on the ship adds + 1/4 speed, each overthruster + 1/2 speed.
Also, war monger races get + 1/2 speed in addition to all of the above. Note,
however, that that bonus will not show up in the ship designer.
The minimum speed for any ship is 1/2. If it would be below 1/2 according to
the above it is 1/2 instead. The maximum speed is 2 1/2. Same comment.
That is it.
BTW, one other minor thing that can cause confusion here. Sometimes when you
scan enemy designs or bring them up in your "enemy hulls" part of the ship
designer, the weight will be listed as 0 kt. Of course the ship is not
massless :-) The speed you will read on the right in those cases does not
take the weight into account. But if you "copy" their designs you can see
the weight and the correct speed. Don't worry, their ships do not get higher
speed in battle; the battle engine knows what they weigh even if your ship
designer display does not.
> Furthermore, the gattling gun and its little sister (for IS only) - are
> they of any use. Looks to me they are quite weak and have a short range.
Yes, they do have only range 2. But for the IS only one, it is the first
range 2 beam on the tech ladder, so not exactly short for the era. That one
is low firepower though.
The others have slighter higher firepower than the latest std beam weapon,
but come out after those on the tech tree. Note also that the firepower of
these is not reduced by range, whereas the standard beams lose 10% of their
firepower at their max range.
But just those things would give no reason to use them. The reasons to use
them (not always, but that can make it worthwhile sometimes) are three -
first, they have higher initiative than any other weapon in the game except
for shield sappers. If you are both in range, you will usually shoot first.
Second, their split-fire ability, which hits every token (not ship, but
"stack") in range. Basically that means they are like a lower rated beam when
they shoot one target and a higher rated one when they shoot 2 ;-) e.g. the
tech 11 gat with 31, comparable to a phaser. But if it shoots two targets it
dishes out 62 all told, about what a blaster would. Similarly a neutrino
cannon (WM only) is a bit stronger than a blaster when it hits one target but
more like a disruptor when it hits 2; big muthas are between disruptors and
AMPs the same way. Of course, if you catch three allied races with several
ship types each and at a gate where they are bringing in reinforcements that
haven't formed into large tokens yet, you can hit the jackpot with this on
occasion. :-)
Third, the gatlings sweep mines as though there were a range 4 beam - that is,
16 times the rated firepower of the weapons (for std beams, swept mines = fp *
range * range). So these are popular weapons for minesweepers.
The gats can be tricky to use effectively sometimes, but rewarding when done
right in situations that call for them. Their big drawback is the range
being only 2, not 3 like the best (but also more expensive) "heavy" std
beams. Lighter weight in one's ship design in order to move last can
sometimes make up for that though, as can the higher init. Maybe he gets one
free shot, but if you are in range the next round you should shoot first in
that round, thus next. Maybe he doesn't get a free shot if you are quick and
light enough to move last when he wants range 3.
> Last thing - as newbie I am working through the ship designs. Are there
> any useful rules of thumb concerning armor vs. shields and what about
> the weight vs. movement issue?
Yes there are and they are briefly stated. I am sure some here might
disagree though :-) So short statement of the rules followed by a longer
explanation of why.
Use the shields and almost never use the armors, early on.
The organic armor (biotech 7 one) is a fine armor, light, and an exception to
the above.
The tech 12, 16, and 24 armors are all good, though even the tech 12 one is
borderline compared to organic. Use them on BBs, but don't make your beamer
versions too heavy (can use 4 std armors on those, or full organic).
The reasons for all the above can be a bit counter-intuitive, especially for
newer players. There is a tendency to say "gee, this fits there; I will
therefore use it." Also there is a tendency to say "well, this armor has
more dp than that shield, so I should use it." The more sophisticated will
say - "true, cap missles do double damage to unshielded targets - so I will
use the armor not when it has more dp than the shield, but when it has twice
as much or better." Still wrong :-)
What all of those mistakes show is *one ship thinking*. You don't need each
ship to be the biggest or most protected. You need your whole fleet to be as
combat-capable as possible. And combat-capable comes from two things - the
defenses yes, but also the firepower.
"What have shields rather than armors to do with firepower?" you will ask.
The answer is simple - cost. Cheaper *per ship* means more ships; more ships
means more firepower as well as more dp than ship-to-ship comparisons show.
Shields are cheaper; that is the big reason to use them. Incidentally, it is
also part of the reason the organic armor is an exception among armors early
on - 175 dp for 20 resources is not a bad deal.
Shields have other virtues too :-) They are light, which makes for better
battle speed, moving last (thus smarter) in combat, lower fuel usage for
better range and speed on the map. They reduce mine damage when one is hit,
and until knocked down halve the damage from cap missles and also take 1/2
the hit which would otherwise go to armor from all torps, and can spread that
1/2 over the whole stack, effectively. They repair instantly after you win
:-) And since you take no armor damage from beams until they are down, more
of your guns stay in action longer vs. enemy beamers.
"Gee they sound so good; surely in a balanced game like stars there must be
another side of the story"... well, ok. Sure. Shields have some weaknesses
- enemies can use sapper weapons against them, especially if you are going to
be in range of those sappers because you are using beams yourself. Some hulls
like the frigate have such low base armor that shielded ones are vunerable to
torpedos, which can kill them through the intact shields. And later on,
minerals are scarcer and resources more abundant, and while the shields are
still fairly cheap the better armors do give more dp per bit of mineral.
Finally, the biggie is that one still needs high armor per ship sometimes, in
order to keep guns in action, when facing the monster missles (dooms, arms,
omegas) - because without a lot of armor, the 1/2 hit through the shields will
get more kills on you sooner when those nasty things are blasting away.
But despite those drawbacks, special situations, and countermeasures, most of
your slots that can be either shield or armor ought to be shields. Just be
on the lookout for the occasionally exception ("gee, do I really want to send
this horde of shielded frigates after those torpedo cruisers?").
I hope this is helpful.
Sincerely,
Jason Cawley
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Scoop
>
> In article <35B837DC...@obelix.antispam.wu-wien.ac.at>,
> U_F_O <h910...@obelix.antispam.wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
>
> > It appears to me that the movement formula indicated in the help file is
> > wrong:
> > M=(Ideal_Speed-4)/4-Weight/70/4/Number_of_Engines+0,25*M_Jets+0,5*Overthruster
> >
> > I get completely weird results - yes, I know about the
> > addition/substraction and divisioin/multiplication rule.
>
> Well I will explain not the help file but stars battle speed :-) (I do think
> it is not wrong but confusing rather, BTW...)
>
> A warp 6 engine gives speed 1.
Did you mean movement?
Perhaps that is the first point of confusion. (6-4)/4 = 0.5
Scoop
Scoop
>
You're welcome.
> >Key thing to remember is that shields stack and armor doesn't.
>
> Ok, a group of ships share the same pool of shields. Does this mean,
> when they split off on the battle board they loose this advantage or
> do they keep it?
They lose it. This is important to remember that when you are sending
shielded ships to be merged at a point of battle, they should be merged
before they arrive (or before the enemy arrives) or they won't have the
stacking you would otherwise expect during the battle. (Waypoint 1
merge orders get processed after battle.)
> The idea would be to build some really good shielded
> Super-X ships which would cover the other battleships on the board.
Now, this can't be done. Only ships of the same exact design in the
same fleet can benefit from stacking. On the battle board, you will see
that each different design has a separate token; each separate token has
its own stack of shields and they do not share.
> >> and what about
> >> the weight vs. movement issue?
> >>
> >One of the most important points here is that the lighter ship moves
> >last, so when you are designing a ship, build a lighter one with greater
> >range than the enemy ship, so that it can move out of range of the
> >enenmy fire but still continue to shoot. You see this effect very often
> >when the range 0 weapons are being used. If you make your range 0 ship
> >too heavy, while it may reach the target, a lighter target will always
> >jump out of range before the range 0 ship can fire, making the range 0
> >ship essentially worthless in that situation - except as expensive
> >chaff, maybe.
> >
>
> The use of range 0 ships not really clear to me. They have to be fast
> to get to range 0, they have to be well armoured to survive the first
> shots from the other side.
This is not necessarily so. You will see alot of shielded range 0
frigate stacks
of 20 or greater as you play. These are especially excellent against
heavier beam ships. They do not do so well against torpedo ships
(because they have no armor as you so correctly pointed out and torpedos
can hit armor without having to melt the shields first), but depending
on the ship, you can still design a stack of range 0 fighters that can
kill a missile ship - if you design it to be lighter than the enemy
missile ship, and perhaps throw on an overthruster or two - whatever it
would take to get the movement about 2 1/4 is best usually. Once we get
the real movement formula figured, it will be easier to design the
ship. (Also note, though, that if your monitor is at least 800x600, the
movement of the ship you are designing will show up in the F4 window for
you. Otherwise, you have to testbed it - or find the right formula.)
> The only idea I've got is to build a enough
> of them to share the shields long enough until the other guy is _dead_
> :-)
Absolutely right on! And this is the fun (?) part of doing your own
battle simulation prior to battle - figuring round by round how much
damage each side does.
> But isn't that expensive?
Beam frigate stacks are very cheap, and can not only be made quickly
early in the game, but can be easily gated as well.
> I think they would need a movement of 2
> at least.
>
Right.
Scoop
Tri-Tech
> to get to range 0, they have to be well armoured to survive the first
> of them to share the shields long enough until the other guy is _dead_
> at least.
IMO, the range 0 ship is only really an option for a WM. I have seen and
use some extremely powerful designs with Blunderbuss weapons on BC hulls.
Such a design can be taken up to move 2 1/2 easily and being WM makes the
weapons load cheap. I'm sure that there are other good ways to use them
but I can't think of one except that in the early game the range +1 on
starbases makes blackjacks good against range 1 beamers but only one stck
since if you fill all the slots, as soon as someone attacks with torps or
range 2 beams, you're toast.
Olen Whitaker
tri-...@nospamplease.hpnc.com
(remove the "nospamplease" to reply)
Scoop
They are also good on frigates in the early game. As IT, I have
successfully used range 0 weapons on shielded frigates against shielded
beamer BCs. When the enemy realizes that they cannot get away with
cheap beamers anymore - and must move to torps, then you have to move
away from shielded range 0 frigates. You must find another hull that
you can equip with just adequate armor to meet the particular threat.
As IT, I have used a range 0 cruiser, for example, to kill another ITs
Jihad BB. (My tech was lower than his :).
Scoop
Shane Kearns
>movement of the ship you are designing will show up in the F4 window for
>you. Otherwise, you have to testbed it - or find the right formula.)
Engine Speed is the highlighted number in the tech browser (e.g. 6 for
long hump 6 or fuel mizer). Subtract 2 and divide this number by 4 -
this is the base battle speed (e.g. fuel mizer = 6-2 = 4 / 4 = 1.0).
So far:
speed = (engine rated speed - 2) / 4
Take the total number of engines, and multiply by 70. This is your
weight divisor. Divide the weight of the ship by the weight divisor,
rounding down. Each one here corresponds to the loss of 0.25 movement
weightReduction = INT(weight/(70 * number of engines))/4
Now add 1/4 for each maneuvering jet, 1/2 for each overthruster etc.
speed = (ERS - 2) - INT(weight/(70 * NE)) + 2 * NO + NM
-----------------------------------------------
4
ERS = engine rated speed
NE = number of engines
NO = number of overthrusters
NM = number of maneuvering jets
If the final speed is < 0.5, you get 0.5
If > 2.5 you get 2.5
--
To send me email: replace the wording on tins
of spam in my email address with 'dial'
Scoop
>
>
If you have a monitor with at least 800x600 resolution,
> >movement of the ship you are designing will show up in the F4 window for
> >you. Otherwise, you have to testbed it - or find the right formula.)
>
> Engine Speed is the highlighted number in the tech browser (e.g. 6 for
> long hump 6 or fuel mizer). Subtract 2 and divide this number by 4 -
> this is the base battle speed (e.g. fuel mizer = 6-2 = 4 / 4 = 1.0).
>
Thanks. It might be helpful to have that reflected in the help file,
too, at the
next patch. Some of us 2.6 users - and the original poster - have a
help file that says the formula is (Ideal_Speed_of_Engine - 4)/4 as
opposed to the one you are using above. The formula you are using fits
better with my experience.
Scoop