Advanced Weapon and Utility technologies are just an inefficient way to increase naval capacity [Battleship analysis, updated 2017-03-05]
Update: Something is very very wrong with combat and singular tests of the same setup are not are not representative of what can be expected.
I saw this thread here on the forum a while ago and it inspired me to do some test. Over there the focus was on finding the best battleship for fighting an equal number of other battleships. Here the focus is on testing the performance of such a battleship versus cheaper, but more numerous battleships.
Warning: The results can be quite demoralizing
.
The Cast:
One of the suggested “Best” battleships for fighting other battleships (with a minor alteration):
A cheap mass driver and plasma battleship:
An even cheaper mass driver only battleship:
And the last contender, a laser only battleship (because results might depend too much on mass driver being overpowered):
A fleet composed of only the expensive battleship will face a fleet worth an equivalent mineral and maintenance cost, first when engaging at long range and then at very short range.
Additional Details:
No space borne alien or dlc technology were used. No repeatable techs were used. No Leaders, strategic resources or spaceport upgrades were used. All ships used the same high end drives, battle computers and sensors.
And no claim is made on the cost effectiveness of any of those.
Both the research costs of the high-end weapon and utility (shield, armour, reactor etc) tech as well as the costs of acquiring additional naval capacity are not a part of this analysis.
The Results:
A fleet composed of only the expensive battleship will face a fleet worth an equivalent mineral and maintenance cost, first when engaging at long range and then at very short range.
First 49 Expensive face 93 mass driver + plasma (the number of the later ship type is rounded up):
Starting at long range the cheap design wins with 45/93 ships surviving.
Starting at short range the cheap design wins with 84/93 ships surviving.
Then 49 Expensive face 96 mass driver (the number of the later ship type is rounded down):
Starting at long range the cheap design wins with 50/96 ships surviving.
Starting at short range the cheap design wins with 81/96 ships surviving.
Finally, 49 Expensive face 92 laser (the number of the later ship type is rounded down):
Starting at long range the cheap design wins with 38/92 ships surviving.
Starting at short range the cheap design wins with 70/92 ships surviving.
Due to the demoralizing nature of these results, repeated tests of the same setups did not occur.
Conclusions:
The more advanced and much more expensive ships did not perform nearly as well as the cheaper alternatives.
In effect, this means that equipping your ships with the most advanced weapons and utilities is just an expensive way of increasing your effective naval capacity.
If one wants to make advancement in weapon and utility technology more effective, one could increase their potency or reduce the cost of using these options on your ships.
Changing naval maintenance to be the same for all ships in a certain category instead of linearly dependent on the cost could be an interesting way to create a trade-off.
Battleship battles do look nice though.
Update:
It seems at least some part of the poor results from above are due to tachyon lances scaling poorly with the size of the fleets.
I did some additional tests with this:
Against the plasma+mass driver from above. (Note that the tachyon plasma should be a counter to the mass driver plasma.)
At 75 of the tachyon+plasma vs 92 mass driver+plasma:
The tachyon lance+plasme loses with 29/92 ships remaining for the other composition, the reason seems to be the tachyon lance underperforming.
And at 22 of the tachyon+plasma vs 27 mass driver+plasma:
Here the tachyon+plasma wins with 4/22 ships remaining, and the tachyon lance contributes a lot more.
As you can see the tachyon lance performs much better at smaller fleet sizes, which could explain a part of the original results.
Even if you happend to use small battleship fleets the other problems with weapon and utility tech should remain. And a counter that barely beats the thing it is supposed to counter, and only at some fleet sizes, isn't great.
Update 2: Something is very very wrong with combat and singular tests of the same setup are not are not representative of what can be expected.
It seems that the reliance on tachyon lances and defensive utilities may have been a larger part of the reason for the poor performance of the test. In addtion repeat battles of the same situation (at different speed?) gave wildly different results.
I tried a fleet of cheap plasma vs the mixed mass driver+plasma fleet above:
83 Plasma vs 92 mass driver + plasma
The plasma won (unsurprising, since the other fleet had a lot of cheap armor), with 22/83 ships remaining.
Then I tried the same with a equvalent cost fleet with first more expensive reactors and plasma and then also more armor and a bit of shields.
71 offensive plasma vs 92 mass driver + plasma:
The more expensive plasma won with 21/71! ships remaining, actually performing a bit better than the cheaper plasma.
Then I tried the more expensive plasma:
59 Expensive plasma vs 92 mass driver+plasma:
Here the cheaper design wins with 39/92! ships remaining.
Troubling.
At this point i decided to do some more test with the offensive plasma above:
1 test (iirc mostly at fast) the offensive plasma only won by 6/71.
And in another test (also mostly at fast) the cheaper plasma won with 61/92 ships remaining!
(that fleet had about half hp left on average though, so it seems something went very wrong with the targeting)
At this point i did another test at normal speed and got another 21/71 result.
This is not an acceptable variance for combat analysis, you can't have a ship desing performing so much better or worse depending on chance and/or game speed, that isn't right.
Update: Something is very very wrong with combat and singular tests of the same setup are not are not representative of what can be expected.
I saw this thread here on the forum a while ago and it inspired me to do some test. Over there the focus was on finding the best battleship for fighting an equal number of other battleships. Here the focus is on testing the performance of such a battleship versus cheaper, but more numerous battleships.
Warning: The results can be quite demoralizing
.The Cast:
One of the suggested “Best” battleships for fighting other battleships (with a minor alteration):
A cheap mass driver and plasma battleship:
An even cheaper mass driver only battleship:
And the last contender, a laser only battleship (because results might depend too much on mass driver being overpowered):
A fleet composed of only the expensive battleship will face a fleet worth an equivalent mineral and maintenance cost, first when engaging at long range and then at very short range.
Additional Details:
No space borne alien or dlc technology were used. No repeatable techs were used. No Leaders, strategic resources or spaceport upgrades were used. All ships used the same high end drives, battle computers and sensors.
And no claim is made on the cost effectiveness of any of those.
Both the research costs of the high-end weapon and utility (shield, armour, reactor etc) tech as well as the costs of acquiring additional naval capacity are not a part of this analysis.
The Results:
A fleet composed of only the expensive battleship will face a fleet worth an equivalent mineral and maintenance cost, first when engaging at long range and then at very short range.
First 49 Expensive face 93 mass driver + plasma (the number of the later ship type is rounded up):
Starting at long range the cheap design wins with 45/93 ships surviving.
Starting at short range the cheap design wins with 84/93 ships surviving.
Then 49 Expensive face 96 mass driver (the number of the later ship type is rounded down):
Starting at long range the cheap design wins with 50/96 ships surviving.
Starting at short range the cheap design wins with 81/96 ships surviving.
Finally, 49 Expensive face 92 laser (the number of the later ship type is rounded down):
Starting at long range the cheap design wins with 38/92 ships surviving.
Starting at short range the cheap design wins with 70/92 ships surviving.
Due to the demoralizing nature of these results, repeated tests of the same setups did not occur.
Conclusions:
The more advanced and much more expensive ships did not perform nearly as well as the cheaper alternatives.
In effect, this means that equipping your ships with the most advanced weapons and utilities is just an expensive way of increasing your effective naval capacity.
If one wants to make advancement in weapon and utility technology more effective, one could increase their potency or reduce the cost of using these options on your ships.
Changing naval maintenance to be the same for all ships in a certain category instead of linearly dependent on the cost could be an interesting way to create a trade-off.
Battleship battles do look nice though.
Update:
It seems at least some part of the poor results from above are due to tachyon lances scaling poorly with the size of the fleets.
I did some additional tests with this:
Against the plasma+mass driver from above. (Note that the tachyon plasma should be a counter to the mass driver plasma.)
At 75 of the tachyon+plasma vs 92 mass driver+plasma:
The tachyon lance+plasme loses with 29/92 ships remaining for the other composition, the reason seems to be the tachyon lance underperforming.
And at 22 of the tachyon+plasma vs 27 mass driver+plasma:
Here the tachyon+plasma wins with 4/22 ships remaining, and the tachyon lance contributes a lot more.
As you can see the tachyon lance performs much better at smaller fleet sizes, which could explain a part of the original results.
Even if you happend to use small battleship fleets the other problems with weapon and utility tech should remain. And a counter that barely beats the thing it is supposed to counter, and only at some fleet sizes, isn't great.
Update 2: Something is very very wrong with combat and singular tests of the same setup are not are not representative of what can be expected.
It seems that the reliance on tachyon lances and defensive utilities may have been a larger part of the reason for the poor performance of the test. In addtion repeat battles of the same situation (at different speed?) gave wildly different results.
I tried a fleet of cheap plasma vs the mixed mass driver+plasma fleet above:
83 Plasma vs 92 mass driver + plasma
The plasma won (unsurprising, since the other fleet had a lot of cheap armor), with 22/83 ships remaining.
Then I tried the same with a equvalent cost fleet with first more expensive reactors and plasma and then also more armor and a bit of shields.
71 offensive plasma vs 92 mass driver + plasma:
The more expensive plasma won with 21/71! ships remaining, actually performing a bit better than the cheaper plasma.
Then I tried the more expensive plasma:
59 Expensive plasma vs 92 mass driver+plasma:
Here the cheaper design wins with 39/92! ships remaining.
Troubling.
At this point i decided to do some more test with the offensive plasma above:
1 test (iirc mostly at fast) the offensive plasma only won by 6/71.
And in another test (also mostly at fast) the cheaper plasma won with 61/92 ships remaining!
(that fleet had about half hp left on average though, so it seems something went very wrong with the targeting)
At this point i did another test at normal speed and got another 21/71 result.
This is not an acceptable variance for combat analysis, you can't have a ship desing performing so much better or worse depending on chance and/or game speed, that isn't right.
Last edited:
