Finding the Absolute Best Battleship

[Pchang]

I wish people would stop putting things like enigmatic stuff and dragon scale armor into their example loadouts. Even if we have the Leviathan DLC, you cannot reliably get them in every game.

 

[Beyond Disbelief]

I wish people would stop putting things like enigmatic stuff and dragon scale armor into their example loadouts. Even if we have the Leviathan DLC, you cannot reliably get them in every game.

The load out i think you're referring to isn't from the OP, and that particular load out is actually sub-par because it is running disruptors.

Disruptors are nice in theory because of the +200% shield damage, until you looked at their base damage numbers and realize they really, really suck compared to KA - even arguably suboptimal to gauss.

 

[alphamikefox]

Of course 42 is the best

 

[Stario]

I've been having some success with keeping destroyers alive by leaving the basic thrusters in situ while the rest of my armada has newest available thrusters.
They seem to stay behind corvettes this way and the enemy fleet seems to target the vettes a lot more.
Suddenly I am having large scale battles where i might loose 10 vettes, 10 destroyers, 7 cruisers instead of first loosing all my 80 destroyers etc. My casualties have really gone down since the change even when fighting equal fleets to mine.

 

[Shoobs]

The ability to emergency FTL a unit type that is just going to get rekt is very good.

The one downside is that fleet battles won't always go as simply as "only engage with the optimal units" -- often times suboptimal units can put you in a numbers advantage, and you might as well moth-ball them all into the same fight.

I've had many situations where I've had significantly weaker numbers of ships but far better quality get WRECKED HARD by the quantity of other ships while fleet power remained relatively equal / in my favor.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I've had many situations where I've had significantly weaker numbers of ships but far better quality get WRECKED HARD by the quantity of other ships while fleet power remained relatively equal / in my favor.

Numbers means focus fire, which might cause a larger fleet of "weaker" ships to beat a smaller fleet of "better" ones, but ships that the game considers "weaker" but which are on meta will beat ones it thinks are "stronger" but off meta.

These battleships in this thread will come out with relatively low fleetpower numbers, and considerably lower than many things they'll shred horribly (in a reasonably sized encounter).

 

[Pchang]

I think the best thing would be to somehow codify these findings into a new fleet strength formula. This would automatically improve the AI and thus, the balance.

 

[Demiare]

Hello, that's I'm again, maniacal armoured guy. (author of more effective cruiser design : The Perfect Cruiser)

Firstly I want to thank both Larknok1 and Yang (from Steam forums) whom inspired me to create pure monster.

Here's, Armoured Monster : http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=842878760

This's ship is ultimate winner in BB stack combat.

Test settings : 60 BB, all tech, no resources, no admirals, Fleet Academy bonus.

Type-42 vs Monster : In all tests Monster win over Type-42 (6/6 victories). But it's unfair right? Let's add plasma cannons...
Type-43 vs Monster : In all tests Monster win over Type-43 (6/6 victories). Yes. 3 plasma cannons is not enough to won over them.

UPDATED (again, thank to Yang).

Basic Armoured Monster design win over Type-12, Type-14 too. Only way to counter it is to use Type-44... But in that case I can swap armaments to 3KA+1plasma and have again stable victory.

So in conclusion : Armoured Monster > any other design except Type-44, for them I need refit to 3KA+1P.

 

[Demiare]

And finally I had done most oblivious and interesting test - what will change with battleships balance when we start to receive repeated techs?

For testing purpose I added level 1 in all repeated techs : armor, hp, shield size, energy damage / attack speed, kinetic damage / attack speed.

That's made some changes in my build : I no longer need 5th armor plate and can reach 90% reduction with 4th. Instead of that plate I'm put power gen (I don't have energy for additional shield and even +2% damage is +2% damage).

And now it's really scary. Because with level 1 repeated tech - armor-heavy generic 2KA+2plasma BB are winning over Type-44 and Type-43. Yes, you're right - all plasma is not enough to counter that armor.

Tier 1 repeated techs.
Type-44 against Monster - armor won 5/5 times (20-33/60 BB remains).
Type-43 against Monster - armor won 9/10 times (9-19/60 BB remains), at single defeat* remains 7/60 Type-43.
Type-42 against Monster - armor won 5/5 times (25-27/60 BB remains).
Don't see any reason to test Type-41.
*after 9 victories in a row I don't see reason to continue. Sure, we can lose here, but chances are small.

Tier 2 repeated techs.
Type-44 against Monster - armor won 5/5 times (14-34/60 BB remains).
Type-43 against Monster - armor won 10/10 times (17-22/60 BB remains).
Type-42 against Monster - armor won 5/5 times (23-28/60 BB remains).

Tier 3 repeated techs.
Type-44 vs Monster - armor won 5/5 times (14-20/60 BB remains).
Type-43 vs Monster - armor won 13/20 times (8-18/60 BB remains), at defeats remains 3-10/60 Type-43.
Type-42 vs Monster - armor won 5/5 times (11-20/60 BB remains).

Tier 4 repeated techs (will test only Type-43)
Type-43 vs Monster - armor won 8/20 times (5-12/60 BB remains), at defeats remains 3-11 Type-43.

You may say "ho!"... but wait, we don't refit our Monster and already have +20% armor meaning that we're have more then hard cap of it... We can refit Monster and add 1 additional shield to it. Now let's try to revenge :

Type-43 against Monster vT4 - armor won 10/10 times (11-15/60 BB remains).

I don't see any need to push repeated techs harder - we're clearly can see results here. After even tiny buff by additional powergens allow it to became uncounterable. Sure, Type-43 pose some treat - but nothing more, he can't reliable win after receiving first repeated tech buffs.

Actually I'm expected that results (shield regen don't increased via repeated tech, so I don't understand from start why anyone can think about shield-tank be viable late-game option), but still surprised how fast armor no longer countered by all-plasma shield-regen. Seems that even living metal / neutronium may be enough to make armor uncountered.

 

[scaper12123]

How would these battleships fair against fallen empires, do you think?

 

[Tokolosk]

Very interesting!

To add to scaper12123's question, how does this fair against a mixed fleet? Can we find the best mixed fleet vs mixed fleet?

 

[Demiare]

I have personal testing universe with all FE for that

To deal with FE we obliviously need PD (it's simply no reason to take avoidable damage - why waste minerals&production spend on BB such silly?), that mean we need cruisers. Plus we need something to soak damage more cost-effective then BB - and it's again cruisers.

Let's test. Our fleet : 52.5k fleet power, no resources, no admirals, all tech with 0 repeated.
*32 Armoured BB
*50 Armoured Cruiser (main combat build with 2KA + 2 medium plasma)
*20 Flak Cruiser (5 flak cannons and 1 autocannon to make sure that AI will move them at point blank - I'm hoping that they will soak some damage too).

vs Holy Guardians: 64.3k fleet power + some transports. 20 battlecruisers and 39 escorts. (don't know where they are lost it)
Won, remaining 31.2k fleet power.
15/32 BB, 33/50 armoured cruisers, 20/20 flak cruisers.

vs Keepers of Knowledge: 72.2k fleet power alone. 20 battlecruisers and 40 escorts.
Won, remaining 43.8k fleet power.
26/32 BB, 43/50 armoured cruisers, 17/20 flak cruisers.

vs Enigmatic Observers: 67.5k fleet power. 20 battlecruisers and 40 escorts.
Won, remaining 37.4k fleet power.
26/32 BB, 30/50 armoured cruisers, 13/20 flak cruisers.

vs Militant Isolationists: 101k fleet power. 30 battlecruisers and 60 escorts.
Won, remaining 24.3k fleet power.
28/32 BB, 0/50 armoured cruisers, 4/20 flak cruisers.

Now who wanna to challenge THIS?

UPD. Builds that I'd used :

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=849534247
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=849534561
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=849534967

Very interesting!

To add to scaper12123's question, how does this fair against a mixed fleet? Can we find the best mixed fleet vs mixed fleet?

That will require a bloody hell amount of work to test all class combination + fleet composition. Sorry, I don't want to waste that much time (especially when Banks on approach and may change balance).

As barebones:
Obliviously we don't want corvettes (they're great with torpedoes - but we need a lot of them in late game, they're have significant maintenance and generate more lags by their amounts. So remains three clasess.

Destroyers are oblivious candidates to throw away (cruisers with autocannons or flaks will deal with corvettes) because of their lowest cost/efficiency in game.

All that remains is cruisers and BB. Currently I'm quite happy with combo of tachyon BB + combat cruiser + flak cruiser. If anyone have in mind interesting idea - I will be more then glad to test it for you.

 

[zanaikin]

Wouldn't it be better if you did a bit of swapping between Battleship and Cruiser mounts?

Mount all Kinetic Artillery on BBs
Mount all Plasma Cannons on CAs

Something I keep finding in my fleets is that the BBs stop moving ahead once in 100 range, which means their plasma cannons are out of range until the enemy closes in. CAs however, have not only better speed but behavior that ensures they close the distance to broadside range.

As a result, my fleet uses:
BBs with 1 Tachyon + 4 Kinetic Artillery
CAs loaded with Plasma Cannons (although still testing if a neutron torpedo makes good addition)

I actually really like Destroyers in the fleet. Because yes, a cruiser has more survivability, but a destroyer is easier to mass produce (by late game every one of my starports are lvl4 or higher, with farms, solar panels, observatory, and crew quarters). Furthermore, destroyers' higher speed means they perform great in detached duty like raiding and counter-raiding. Max-evasion destroyers (43%) also dodges much of the X/L weapons fire from BBs... whereas Cruisers just get shredded.

Given that destroyers are my cannon fodder, I need them to not take up production time from my dedicated naval yards (which mostly build BBs)

 

[Demiare]

Wouldn't it be better if you did a bit of swapping between Battleship and Cruiser mounts?

No. I want to determine strongest build that can win in almost any situation and I shouldn't really care about enemy fleet power - for example same fleet composition with 70k fleet power win over 140k Holy Guardian fleet. All that remains is mere 8 cruisers

So I want to keep weapons mixed in case of redundancy. If you will run into such fleet - you're doomed and will be defeated after lose of every battleship. In my case - fleet will keep fighting.

Plus main idea of my armor & hp extender fleet is to win by alpha strike : I need to deal as much damage as possible in same time loosing as little ships as possible in first combat "rounds" to build snowballing effect (and that's how I won over pure shield regens).

But unlike corvettes, they can dish out damage with L/M weapons of their own.

Problem that math against destroyers.

Despite their evasion - they have less eHP then 2 corvettes plus X- and L- sized weapon no longer will target them if have cruisers or battleships in range. Also destroyers with KA deal less raw damage then corvettes with torpedoes and especially less if armed with flaks in M-slots.

Sure you can use them - but corvette swarms are better then destroyers until they will begin to overburden your PC and after that you should have enough minerals to stack cruisers.

 

[zanaikin]

My problem with corvettes is that Corvettes with torpedos can't score enough hits on any fleet with decent PD unless you outfit your fleet with significant amount of missile launchers to draw fire, and I'm really not a fan of the missiles' overkill ratio -- due to distance-to-target and how targets are often killed before missiles arrive. In a regular engagement, much of those torpedos are unleashed against escort ships of DD/CA class instead of the BBs, which are bulkier and thus less prone to overkill. Because of this, I only use torpedo corvettes for "flanking fleets" that operate independently and dives after rear-line BBs after engagements begin. But as an BB screening vessel, the torpedo corvettes' DPS output may look high on paper but is of questionable efficiency in combat.

Sure, I can use neutron torpedos which aren't vulnerable to PD fire, but those are shieldbusters and do terrible against any decently-amounted warship (which BBs, especially FE BBs, have plenty of armor.)

Many of my fleets actually skip cruisers. And since BBs are so slow to move up due to their behavior, it means many rear line enemy BBs have nothing BUT DDs to shoot at. This is especially effective in a multi-fleet engagement (i.e. send a sacrificial corvette vanguard in first, which forces the enemy fleet to stretch out their line, and then send in the main fleet -- the distance between their light and heavy ships widen even further)

A lot of these are factors you can't see under strictly controlled testing conditions.

 

[Demiare]

Sure, I can use neutron torpedos which aren't vulnerable to PD fire, but those are shieldbusters and do terrible against any decently-amounted warship (which BBs, especially FE BBs, have plenty of armor.)

All of FE, except Militants, have shield capacitors so neutron torpedoes work really well against them.

Many of my fleets actually skip cruisers.

Sure, you can do this. But it's not most effective (cruisers are more effective then battleship in soaking fire, their eHP per 1 mineral is notable higher).

A lot of these are factors you can't see under strictly controlled testing conditions.

What? Stellaris is WONDERFUL game to test & study it's mechanic. Devs were super generous and give us incredible possibilities in console. To simulate what you had told I can :
*Turn off ai
*Swap to enemy and command him to move
*Swap to myself and command flank attack on moving enemy, then additing more fleets in battle (with disabled AI they will never retreat).

We can test almost everything here (and with inclusion of mods - really everything).

 

[Adamsrealm]

Aren't 2 plasmas better?

Range is king in stellaris.

 

[Demiare]

Range is king in stellaris.

No, it isn't. Any fight with equal force will end in dogfight anyway. You can't "kite" enemy.

Reasons why 1 tachyon is better then 2 L-plasma :
1) Tachyon overdamage 2 large plasma even with raw damage after some hotfix in 1.3.x. (24.01 raw tachyon and 11.29 raw L-plasma).
2) Tachyon have very strong synergy with KA, allowing them work in pair and quickly build snowballing effect.

Even if we will set tachyon range to 60 - both reasons will allow it to be better then L-plasma.

 

[Adamsrealm]

No, it isn't. Any fight with equal force will end in dogfight anyway. You can't "kite" enemy.

Reasons why 1 tachyon is better then 2 L-plasma :
1) Tachyon overdamage 2 large plasma even with raw damage after some hotfix in 1.3.x. (24.01 raw tachyon and 11.29 raw L-plasma).
2) Tachyon have very strong synergy with KA, allowing them work in pair and quickly build snowballing effect.

Even if we will set tachyon range to 60 - both reasons will allow it to be better then L-plasma.

Battleships kite if all kinetic artillery and lances, but you are right that dogs fights normally ensue if you get close enough.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The heady days of 1.2.x when battlewagons with five Tachyon Lances a piece, in 50 ship fleets, would mulch 500K worth of Unbidden and do millions of points of damage while only taking 300 points in return.

It is good to see lances are still king.