[EDIT] Sorry if this came across as hostile, it was not my intent. I think I must just be in a bad mood or something O_O
Ah, then my apologies for snapping back at you. It was not deserved.
Ugg. This kind of thinking depresses me in how much it ignores. The majority of combat in this game is not about running ships into each other and just letting the numbers play out. You specifically ignore the fact that ships can move and maneuver, which is the single biggest factor in their combat ability! You say I took damage S? Wrong! I took damage 10*S, 50*S, because I can maneuver and coordinate with other ships to provide relief.
You're ignoring more than I am. If your ships can manoeuvre, then so can theirs. If you're taking 50*S, so are they. They're just also taking A+H. If they're not taking 50*S, you're outclassing them in manoeuvre.
They will probably take multiple time S on their shield as well!
So, yes.
Even in capital ships you can disengage a tough opponent, vent your shield flux
Which is why I suggested having a missile frigate follow them - so they can't effectively disengage. If they stop to vent, their PD goes down and then missiles take out their armour. If they don't vent then I'm locking down a capital with a frigate or destroyer.
Are there some ships that are more deadly shields down? Yes! This doesn't mean that this is the case for all playstyles or for all ships!
Just all ships slower than what they're fighting.
its a lifesaver for blocking damage from harassers and from strike ships though! The raw numbers, while important and easy to tweak, are much less important than the circumstance.
Yes. Because of the way armour works, it is essential to take missiles and bombs on the shield. Which is why I say the Apogee has to keep its shield raised at all times.
you just have to toggle autofire on weapon group 4 if you are near the maximum flux, then you can let it cool down to the "hardflux" and start firing again until there comes a point where you need to vent. (you will soak up 37500 damage per venting cycle).
That's exactly what I do.
That's not how it works... if i can follow your math, your shield upkeep of 40% lowers your weapon damage by 40%?
Shield upkeep is a constant flux/second value of how much flux your shields generate when active (of the base vent rate)
On the eagle that's 210 flux/second, on the Assault variant you mentioned above that's 27% of the actual vent rate...
Yeah I made a mistake there, then forgot to go back and fix it when I noticed. I thought the codex listed total flux dissipation, not base dissipation. In later calculations I used the listed flux vent numbers plus base rate.
I'm assuming most combat occurs at near max flux, mainly because it does. (Come to think, I'm not doing so quite consistently, though the error is not major.) At max flux, your damage output is constrained by your flux dissipation. Raising shields is essentially a hit to flux dissipation.
Actually it's not irrelevant if you put 2 ships against 1... there is no way that you can maneuver in a way that both can't vent safely
it's kinda like putting a lasher against a tempest...
Excellent point. If the AI was smart, the Eagles would win because the one taking fire would run away, vent, and play a tag-team with the second. The Paragon cannot run away from the Eagles.
\if possible you will always try to vent safely out of range of your opponent, which means that the faster ship got the advantage because it can vent without getting shot, a slow ship can't do that and has to take the shots...
Taking the shots on the armour is actually better than the shield, except for missiles and other strike weapons. It is also the correct decision to vent if you have a perfect PD escort.
They do exactly the same amount of damage up until the flux limit is reached; in fact, the paragon fighting without it's shields up will likely do far LESS damage because it's going to be having it's weapon systems disabled as it takes damage on the hull.
Yes, you do the same until you hit max flux. However, most combat occurs at max where damage is constrained by dissipation, so simplifying to it ALL occurring at max flux should be safe. I should get with 5-10% of real conditions.
Yes, my Paragons lose weapons. I find armoured emplacements really handy, but even without it I hit max flux almost instantly, so it doesn't matter.
If you are carefully monitoring your flux level, dropping shields to dissipate and or vent when you have a moment,
When the AI doesn't do something stupid, there is never a moment. It is smart about saving missiles.
and avoiding overload, the shielded paragon will always do 100% damage whereas the unshielded one's damage will depend on weather or not it's weapons are even online from all the fire it's taking on the hull.
No. After the initial charge of flux is spent, all damage depends on flux dissipated, and the shields reduce dissipation by 60%. Since the Paragon never loses so many weapons it starts to net vent flux while firing full auto, the only constraint is dissipation, and even under the most optimistic assumptions the unshielded Paragon has 60% more dissipation, and thus can fire 60% more often.
Maybe hes mistaken the bonus to beam weaponry for being near the flux limit and thinks that its applied when the shields are down instead?
I specifically mention that one of the benefits of having the shields down is being able to ride max flux without worrying about overload, so you can have 150% damage constantly.
Just for fun, I tested this. AI controlled Paragon vs 2x assault eagle, and then modded the Paragon to have no shields and tried again. The results were clear: a Paragon with shields took a trivial amount of armor damage (you could only barely see that it had taken any damage). The paragon without shields got a hole punched in its armor and took minor hull damage (a couple thousand points worth).
The first problem is 'no shields' is not the same as what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting you block missiles and bombs with the shield and take everything else on the armour.
The second problem is that 'trivial amount of damage.' I had hoped two Eagles would be able to threaten a Paragon, because they total slightly more fleet points. If I was wrong, then the calculation for something that CAN threaten the Paragon will be even more pessimistic. Obviously if they can't punch the shields, using shields is better.
Try giving one (maybe both?) Eagle Harpoons instead of Sabots and see what happens. Since the no-shield Paragon can't block the missiles either, they should both die. Give them autocannons instead of assault and I all but guarantee they'll win.
The biggest thing I can't get past in seeing this as a viable strategy is the lasting power of ships that use armor tanking exclusively. In an extended fight with large fleets, your ships have to engage multiple times against fresh reinforcements. I just don't see many ships surviving more than a couple waves intact.
I suppose that makes for a compelling choice, now that you mention it.
You can choose to do better burst damage and sacrifice hull and armour, or go for the long haul by putting the shields up but killing things slowly.
If you can take multiple waves, each individual wave isn't a close fight. Yes,
if you can get of weapons range to vent, shields are great. The pauses between waves counts.
Watch out, though, if your shield sacrifices too much, the next wave should arrive before you kill the last one, making shields an unambiguous loss, again.
Author
Topic: Questions: Kinetic Damage, Shield Practice, Campaign Fleet battles (Read 22334 times)