• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Cordane

GW/SC/PD/Flak Wonk
18 Badges
Sep 25, 2013
672
402
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Looking over the details in the Wiki, I'm curious about some things that came up:

1. Scout Wings show up on the Weapon Components page as the first type of SC, but they don't show up anywhere in the Engineering, Physics, or Society tech lists. Are they at all valid weapons, or are they just kind of a placeholder?

2. Basic Strike Craft are Tier-1, Improved SC are Tier-2, and Advanced SC are Tier-3, but Flak Batteries are Tier-0, Flak Cannons are Tier-3, and Flak Artillery are Tier-4 (PD are T0, T2, T4 for comparison, and FC are only 6000 Cost, so that may be errant). Anyway, the other part of this is that Missiles, Lasers, and Mass Drivers are all 5-tier weapons (T0-T4), but SC are currently only 3 (maybe 4 if Scout Wings are legit) and certainly stopping at Tier-3 seems sketchy. Should there be a Tier-4 SC tech?

3. With the other 5-tier weapons, advancing by one tier normally increases average damage per day (same with damage per hit, assuming no change to Accuracy or Cooldown) by around 30% - currently, Basic SC to Imp SC is ~29%, and Imp SC to Adv SC is ~28%, which is probably close enough (with such small base numbers). However, building costs (Alloys and special materials) are usually ~30% increase per until Tier-3 (which is only the addition of a special material) and Tier-4 (which is an increase for both). With Basic SC to Imp SC, it's a 70% increase in Alloys (40 to 68), followed by ~29% increase from Imp SC to Adv SC (68 to 88), and no special materials. If they should be more in line with 5-tier progression, would it make more sense to go 40 to 52 (~30%) and then add 1 each of some material from Imp SC to Adv SC? Or, if they would stay with just Alloy increases, 52 to 68 (~31%)? Power is already around 31-32% increase per.

4. I'm not going to worry about SC Shields or Hull, even though Basic SC to Imp SC is high from 45 to 60, as the total increase from Basic SC to Adv SC is about right. But Flak only increases by 25% from T0 to (corrected) T2, and then 60% from T2 to T4 (compares to 69% or compound 30% over 2 tiers). A damage progression closer to the others would be 1-3/1-6/2-10 (a touch high at 75% and 71%). GW Hull increases are weak, between ~11% and ~17% per Tier; comparing them to the 2-tier jumps in damage for Point-Defense, it's 33% missiles vs. 40% PD from T0-T2 and 25% vs. 43% from T2-T4. Probably more appropriate would be SC increasing to a 6/8/10/13/17 Hull progression (25-33% increase per Tier) and PD changing to 1-4/2-6/3-10 for damage progression (60% and 63% increases per 2-tiers, which is a little low).

5. Tracking and Evasion are very tricky - never mind the fact that the continuum for T/E is completely different for at least warships compared to both SC/Flak and Guided Weapons/PD (if not whether they SHOULD also be different for SC/Flak and GW/PD from each other). Because Tracking and Evasion don't increase for SC and GW (but DO for Tracking at least for Flak and PD) according to improvements in their launching warship's Sensors/Thrusters, Computers, or Aux Slots (I'm fairly certain of this - please correct me if I'm wrong here), SC and GW see increases in their values (GW is Evasion-only) as they improve by Tier. But why do Flak and PD also see their Tracking base values increase?

6. Additionally, Tracking and Evasion for both SC and GW don't seem to start or progress right. That GW have such low base Tracking is hilarious, but not progressing at all is highly annoying (and probably an artifact of them IIRC starting with 100% Tracking, followed by getting nerfed to 25%, and then forgetting they should probably increase by Tier). Based on the current formula for Tracking cancelling 90-capped Evasion, there's effectively no difference between the Imp SC (90%) and Adv SC (100%). Evasion for SC/GW, when compared to the expected Tracking increases for Flak/PD, is also comical, with a researched T1 Basic SC having 65% Evasion but a T0 Flak Battery having 50% base Tracking plus either +10 for Picket or +5 (Accuracy) for Line computers, and possibly +5 (Acc) from Aux Fire Control. And T2 Imp SC having 80% Evasion against (corrected T2) Flack Cannon with 60% base Tracking plus the same computer and Aux Slot bonuses - this is actually relatively benign on a Tier bump, as you end up with almost the same E/T gap. Then we get to Tier-3 and -4, where there's no increase in Evasion for Adv SC (still 80%), but Flak Artillery jump to 70% base Tracking and can gain +20/+30 for Advanced (Tier-3) or Sapient/Autonomous (both are Tier-4) Picket or +10/+20 (Acc) for Adv or Sap/Auto Line computers, with the same Aux slot bonus available. On the GW side, it's similar with base values of 0% (T0 Nuclear) and 10% (T1 Fusion) missiles going against 10% (T0 Sentinel) PD (i.e., doesn't even need bonuses to overcome Evasion), then 20% (T2 Antimatter) and 30% (T3 Quantum) missiles versus 20% (T2 Barrier) PD (i.e., only minimal and almost-assured bonus to counter), and finally 40% (T4 Marauder) missiles vs. 30% (T4 Guardian) PD (i.e., again, a given that bonus Tracking will swamp Evasion). Should these weapons all have their Evasion (SC/GW) and Tracking (Flak/PD) numbers revisited?

7. Going back to several threads I've been involved in lately: there are no advanced weapons for SC or GW in the same vein as Kinetic Batteries/Artillery over Gauss Cannons or Proton/Neutron Launchers over Gamma Lasers. Torpedoes are probably the closest, especially when compared to PL/NL, as they have even more ridiculously high Cooldown rates, but their slower speed, shorter range, and only-parallel 3-tier progression (rather than T3+ and T4+ technologies) makes them closer to Plasma weapons or Autocannons instead. (Their lack of Evasion isn't really even that much of a hindrance, as PD was going to hit the missiles anyway.) SC don't even have that, with only salvage techs. Again, a T4 regular SC would be needed first, but then (as I discussed here) you could add cruise missiles and bombers into the game.

I'm sure I'll have more things to bring up, but that's what I have for now.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Speaking of Computers affecting Flak: Specialized Computers in Swarm, Picket, Line, and Artillery flavors all offer +5% ROF, with the secondary effects being +5% Evasion, +10 (flat) Tracking, +5% Accuracy, or +5% Range. (I'm fairly certain that the Evasion bonus is multiplied against the base Evasion, but is the bonus to Accuracy closer to a flat bonus or multiplied against base ACC (e.g., +5% on base 75% ACC is +3.75 to ACC)?)
  • Tracking is the biggest possible value increase, but as indicated above might only be worth 5 points if all of the Tracking bonuses end up swamping SC Evasion.
  • Range is tricky to officiate because a 5% increase in the radius of a sphere results in a 15.8% increase in the volume of that sphere, but the vertical aspect of the system map isn't used all that well, while SC Speed doesn't currently increase as much as it should.
    • Improvements in Thruster technology result in 25/50/75/125% increases in warship sublight speeds, but SC have a progression of 550/600/650/700 Speeds (+9.1/18.2/27.3% from Scout value). Comparable improvements would be 550/690/830/970 (1240 for a Tier-4 SC). Increasing SC Speed would allow them to cross fields of Flak fire quicker, but then they would orbit their targets, mitigating this advantage some.
  • Evasion increasing for an SC target isn't really useful, as SC have very high Tracking that maxes out at Tier-2 (a Corvette would have to be very lucky and very specialized to max out Evasion by the end of Tier-1).
  • Accuracy is more useful than an equal Tracking bonus, but it'll more likely be smaller than a same-tier Picket Tracking bonus and likely applied to lesser effect.
While the ROF bonus shows up all the time, and should be countered by some boost for the SC (improved Speed increases would likely be a good start), the other bonuses are both less individually common and less effective, and on average would probably wash out with any other dueling improvements.
 
For the issues with the progression of SC/GW Evasion and Flak/PD Tracking, I think the first fix is to eliminate the built-in progression for Flak & PD. The biggest reasons are 1) all other direct-fire weapons on warships DO NOT improve their base Tracking values as they improve in technology, and 2) direct-fire weapons gain improvements to Tracking based on ship components, while SC & GW do not gain anything for Evasion from their launching ship.

Then, because we're trying to add a Tier-4 Strike Craft, we push down the starting values for SC Evasion and Flak Tracking to allow for a full progression on the SC Evasion side. Once that's done, for SC/Flak we might see:

TierStrike Craft Base EvasionFlak Base TrackingSensor BonusPicket Computer BonusEasy Flak Net Tracking
050400040
1604001050
2704051055
38040102070
49040153085

The above progression means that a typical Picket Destroyer with Flak Cannons/would maintain basically a 10-point gap behind same-Tier SC without any other bonuses on either side (and at Tier-4, SC can't apply any other bonuses and Flak are already only 5 points back - if we're worried about that, drop starting Evasion and Tracking by 10, or allow for initially unbound Evasion and Tracking that are only capped after subtraction). A non-Picket warship would definitely lose out on the built-in progression from before, but that would be no different from falling behind against Corvettes with most S-slot weapons.

While I don't agree in principle on keeping Point-Defense as a weapon slot-based defense for GW (see my signature), I'll work with the above, for the purposes of this discussion, to come up with an update to the existing setup. Evasion for GW is currently set very low in the same continuum used for SC - IMO it should be reversed, but again I'll stick closer to existing rules. With that in mind, we have a similar situation with GW (specifically Missiles) and PD:

TierMissile Base EvasionPD Base TrackingSensor BonusPicket Computer BonusEasy PD Net Tracking
0100000
120001010
230051015
3400102030
4500153045

Again, similar gap to the SC/Flak progression above, with the biggest difference being that missiles have a smaller base Evasion score (and Evasion bonuses are multiplicative rather than Tracking's additive bonuses). If many Tracking bonuses ended up being multiplicative rather than additive, the 0% base Tracking for PD would be a problem. In that situation (and again staying closer to vanilla), I would instead recommend having both progressions use the same values from the first table and then separate the targeting options further, with PD only viable versus GW and Flak only against SC. If Stellaris could be set to have a Tracking penalty for Flak against GW and PD against SC, that would be a useful compromise to allow Flak and PD to stay more versatile, but I don't think the current formulas would account for a versus target adjustment like that.

Coming back from that tangent, Swarmers would continue to have 0% Evasion and Torpedoes would probably have a base Evasion at Tier-2 of 10-20%, increasing by 5 each Tier. This would allow Picket-equipped ships to continue to always nullify Torpedo Evasion and non-Picket ships would have to add just 1-2 other small bonuses to do so (rather than all ships never having to worry about current Torpedo Evasion of 0%).
 
Strike Craft Tracking and Accuracy are definitely in a very weird place. They have to be able to shoot down other SC, which have Evasion values up to 90, meaning the attacking SC has to match that Evasion almost entirely on its own (some Titan auras and Admiral traits do apply). Because GW are on the same Tracking/Evasion continuum as SC, and are well below them in value, even Tier-0 SC Tracking is always able to swamp even Tier-4 GW Evasion. This is on top of SC Accuracy pegged at 100%, so they're almost always able to hit anything they're aimed at, between Accuracy and (nearly) pegged Tracking relative to target Evasion.

Vanilla GW also don't have near enough Hull to withstand SC damage - same-Tier vanilla SC does on average 6 damage against 6 Hull at T0, 7 damage/Hull at T1, 9/8 damage/Hull at T2, 11.5/9 at T3, and still 11.5 versus 10 at T4 (less than 50% survival per shot at each Tier). Point-Defense has its own advantages, with 0.5 day cooldown vs. 2.3 for SC, Range 30 vs. 10, and typically enough Tracking to beat vanilla GW Evasion anyway, with the only drawback being base Accuracy 75%. But a Hangar of SC gets 8 attacks every 2.3 days (on average an attack every 0.2875 days) whereas the same slot-value of PD (4 S-slot equivalents = 1 L-slot equivalent) would be 4 attacks every 0.5 days (on average an attack every 0.125 days). Using vanilla values, T0 SC average 20.86 damage against T0 GW per day for a full 8-craft wing (equivalent to 3.48 T0 Missiles), while four T0 PD average 15.00 DPD (2.5); T2 SC average 31.30 DPD (3.91 T2 Missiles), four T2 PD average 22.48 DPD (2.81); T3 SC average 40.00 DPD (4.00 T4 Missiles, despite being a Tier behind), four T4 PD average 30.00 DPD (3.00 T4 Missiles).

But when I sub in the adjusted values I presented in the OP, SC are at a disadvantage. The updated progression adds 183% more GW Hull over four Tiers, but vanilla SC only goes up 150% (if you have a "vanilla" T4 SC at 7-23 damage per hit or 52.17 DPD for a Hangar). Here's a full updated progression, including improved and expanded SC damage per hit and damage per day:

Missile HullMH ProgressPD DPHPD ProgressPD x4 DPDPD Missile EquivSC DPHSC ProgressHangar DPDHangar Missile Equiv
61-415.002.504-820.873.48
833.3%1-415.001.885-1133.3%27.833.48
1025.0%2-626.5% per Tier24.002.407-1431.3%36.523.65
1330.0%2-624.001.859-1828.6%46.963.61
1730.8%3-1027.5% per Tier39.002.2912-2329.6%60.873.58

The Missile Equivalents drops over Tiers on the PD side, and compared to the normal L-slot damage = x6 S-slot damage, the ratio goes from one Hangar = 5.57 PD mounts at Tier-0 to Hangar = 6.24 PD at T4. (As I said in the OP, it's hard to get the progression smooth with such small numbers to work with.)

Should SC acting in the anti-GW role be this effective relative to that of actual PD mounts, considering all that they can do besides anti-GW? If they shouldn't, how would you be able to decrease their effectiveness in the anti-GW role without crippling their ability elsewhere? As I indicated in the previous comment, my preference (assuming I'm sticking closer to vanilla) would be to reverse the order of GW and SC on the Evasion/Tracking continuum, but sticking SC with that low of a Tracking value would make them less useful on the standard warship E/T continuum as they would be much less useful versus Corvettes (which they should realistically be able to handle fine). Having SC handle anti-SC and anti-Corvette duties, but NOT anti-GW, could work but would remove one of the major selling points versus other L-slot weapons currently in Stellaris. A reverse on the SC/GW continuum AND a bonus versus warships would probably be ideal, but would it even work?
 
Flipping Flak to the lower end of the Evasion/Tracking continuum (which makes realistic sense because it's firing a slower kinetic/explosive round) would need to coincide with getting the higher damage set from Point-Defense (or just a higher set overall) - the opposite is true for PD going to the higher end of the continuum (again realistically it's firing a lightspeed energy weapon), but I don't know if you could at all manage a damage set using smaller whole numbers without seriously fudging the Cooldown numbers.

If you simply swap out the damage progressions, PD does even worse relative to SC in the anti-GW role, with the ratios of one Hangar to one PD being 6.96 to one at Tier-0, again 6.96 to one at T2, and 6.76 to one at the extended T4 (above we were at 5.57 for T0 and 6.24 for T4). But running with the energy weapon description means you could set PD at Accuracy 90% (similar to Lasers), bringing damage per day back up to just short of 2.5 Missiles per day at each Tier and the ratios to 5.80, 5.80, and 5.64, respectively. SC would probably still need an adjustment to make them relatively worse versus GW, to balance their other advantages, but they're in a better starting position.

Flak would then move into the lower-Tracking, higher-DPH role, but if they keep the 75% Accuracy, they get beaten by the now 90% Accuracy of PD. To counter this, and keep Flak relevant versus SC, we can remember that SC use Shields. If we give PD a penalty to Shields and give Flak a bonus to Shields (probably 50 each way), Flak would keep their dominant position versus SC. But that brings up another point:

Vanilla SC start off at Tier-0 with 30 points of Hull and 0 in Shields, then jump to 35 and 10 (or Shields accounting for 22.2% of total defense), followed by 40/20 (33.3%), 45/30 (40.0%), and extrapolating to Tier-4 at 50/40 (44.4%). That compares to a Corvette at T0 with 300 Hull and three S-slots with Shields and/or Armor of 50 points each, meaning that the 150 points of S/A account for 33.3% of total defense; T1 adds Improved Corvette Hulls with 100 points of Hull and T1 S/A at 65 points each, so 195 S/A accounting for 32.8%; T2 adds another 100 Hull with Advanced Corvette Hulls, 85 points each for S/A, 255 S/A total, and 33.8%. At T3, Hull stops improving for Corvettes, but Shields & Armor do, 110 each and 39.8% in total; T4 is still 500 total Hull, 145 per S/A, and 46.5%. Destroyers start at T2 with 33.8% in S/A, then 35.5%, and lastly 42.0%; Cruisers T3 @ 50%, T4 @ 52.9%; Battleships T4 @ 57.9%.

A revised SC progression might be closer to this:

TierHullShieldHull ProgressShield ProgressTotal ProgressShield % of Defense
024620.0%
1301025.0%66.7%33.3%25.0%
2371423.3%40.0%27.5%27.5%
3471927.0%35.7%29.4%28.8%
4602627.7%36.8%30.3%30.2%

In the above scenario, T0 PD takes about 33.9% longer to get through T0 SC than T0 Flak, T2 is 33.6% longer, and T4 is 30.7% longer. If Flak & SC keep the Evasion and Tracking numbers from the third post, Flak eats it hard when it tries to go opposite in trying to shoot down GW, though both definitely have more room to improve - I would probably shift both starting points up by 10 to put the base Tracking for Flak only 30 points back of PD. This would still leave Flak taking 60.0% longer against GW at T0, 57.5% longer at T2, and 51.0% longer at T4. The bonus to Shield damage will probably come into play when used in general warship combat, perhaps enough to compensate for the vs.GW shortfall.

My thanks for sitting through all of these posts, especially with the bit of stream-of-consciousness aspect to them. I'm sure I'll have more soon.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I went over the costs for Strike Craft, and here is an updated progression, more in line with other L-slot weapons:

TierWeaponAlloysMotesPower
0Scout Wing4020
1Basic Strike Craft5226
2Improved Strike Craft6834
3Advanced Strike Craft681.0045
4(Tier-4) Strike Craft881.3059

Here's where it gets crazy: Strike Craft analogues for Kinetic Launchers or Particle Launchers show the scaling issues with SC-size vessels trying to damage warships. I figured I would set them up as Bombers, with 4 units per Hangar, 4 day Cooldown, 100% Accuracy, 12 attack Range, ignore Shields, 150% damage vs. Armor, and 100% damage vs. Hull (all those are the same as regular SC, except 8 per Hangar, 2.3 day Cooldown, and 10 attack Range). Their progression might look like this:

TierWeaponAlloysMotesPowerDamage per HitTrackingDamage per DayHullShield
3+Strike Bomber881.307024-1202072.00 (not 144)12052
4+Assault Bomber1141.699032-1563094.00 (not 188)15073

Each of the four Assault Bombers has around 30% of a T4 Corvette's Hull points (after Improved and Advanced Hull Reinforcement), and their Shields are worth 17% of a T4 Corvette's three S-slot capacity. EACH does more damage per hit than a T4 M-slot Gamma Laser, hits more accurately, more often, against more distant targets, and ignores Shields. That's absurd on its face, but it's "balanced" by having SC shot down at equally absurd rates. (Will... Not... RANT...) But the progression is actually really close to vanilla, so I guess it's okay? (I will not rant. Ranting is the thread-killer...)

Edit: Damage per Day was calculated at 8 craft (regular Strike Craft wing) versus 4 craft (Bomber wing), now corrected.
 
Last edited: