If you enjoyed this video, please hit the like button and subscribe to my channel, it helps my videos get more viewers, more attention which helps my channel to grow. I have created a gaming community on Discord, if you want to chat, talk with others who play strategy games, keep up to date with new videos or maybe join in multiplayer games, feel free to join my discord. If you have ideas on videos you would like to see or some other form of comment, send me a message on discord or here. discord.gg/ynAdAGYKKf Consider joining this channel to show your support for the video's that I make. It helps me to keep this channel growing and providing more content and to get access to perks: ua-cam.com/channels/LJ1CRQN9vkjstRLyRU3G9w.htmljoin
"I like lasers over plasma because of their accuracy" But you are running AI Line computer that puts plasma to 100%. I run laser, autocannon on my corvettes because they don't get line computers.
I know but I want to test some Battleship designs that can close the distance and brawl it out at closer ranges. Against ships with torpedo's this would not work but you would always have screening ships anyway and I may test fleet scenarios on this as well.
I still love plasma, I should do some testing comparing those battles but swapping those lasers for plasma and see if it changes the results. Going to be fun testing all these brawler type designs for battleships as I don’t think anyone has done it previously at least not videos of it.
I might have considered running 2 large Lasers and 4 medium Autocannons. Unless you have need of better tracking, larger Lasers tend to offer better damage and range. Autocannons, by contrast, benefit far more from their better rate of fire, so 2 medium autocannons tend to out-damage 1 Large. Otherwise, though, it might be worth considering Medium Gauss Cannons instead of autocannons for their better range. EDIT: The issue in your last few tests may be an issue damage dispersal. As I understand it, Bypass weapons like missiles and strike craft tend to prioritize targets with shields, so their secondary fire is scattered among the shielded targets. By contrast, energy weapons focus on ships without shields; once the Lances breach the enemy shields, the Lasers can all converge on the vulnerable unshielded target to quickly finish them off. This means they finish off targets very quickly, rather than trying to fight the entire fleet at once.
I will do some more testing with the auto cannons as you suggest. With the last few battles, I am going to do some testing now to see if it is the hardening or as you say the damage being dispersed which it could be.
with the last couple of tests I think it was down to the L lasers having only a few targets as the carrier fleet spread out, this caused all the damage to hit a few ships where as the carrier fleet's attack was spread across the whole fleet.
What I was really look at if you look at nearly every battle, the opening 10 seconds the opposing fleet to the Lasers/Auto Cannons loses 6-8 ships in the opening alpha strike but the Autocannon fleet did not, not in any test. I actually think it might be something to do with armor/shield hardening not functioning correctly and blocking part of all damage and not just penetration weapons, but I need to do more testing on this which I will tomorrow. If it is not that then it must be another cause.
@@tachyonlance1969 I still think it is due to the random aspect of weapons you have 1000+ rolls possible per ship for tachyon and almost 1700 for arc :s You will need a LOT of tests to see if hardening is bugged without access to weapons damage. I have seen nothing in mirror tests and even in test with shields disparity sometimes weakest fleet can massively win when X slot is involved. Reason why I hate arc even if it is good without hardening when you try to kill FE early and your first two salvos are low rolls you are screwed pretty hard.
Yes RNG can play a big roll on it, I plan to do a lot of testing on it today to see if it is just weapon RNG or if it is hardening tech not working right. I will use two fleets exactly the same bit one will have hardening and the other not, no one will have bypass weapons so it should give me some good info of hardening is working as intended or if it is something else I have missed.
Regarding that 6th battle, the carrier fleet began dispersing well before any tachyon lances fired. By the time the tachyons could fire the compact Yamato fleet was presented with a long line of targets with the center of the line being much closer than either end. The Yamato fleet concentrated its fire on the targets that were closest and achieved kills. When the lasers fire they can be seen to be concentrated upon only 3 or 4 ships. Another question to ask is why did the carriers equipped with 3 afterburners and carrier combat computers get into range of laser fire instead of kiting more effectively? I wonder if leaving the P slots unpopulated would change the behavior of the carriers.
This is also to do with the spinal mounts on the carriers, as it forces the ship to turn and fire due to firing arc. Going to redo some tests with the carrier but without a spinal mount. See how it turns out.
Try an arc emmiter in the x slot, a single carrier and whirlwind missles in every other slot with 3 afterburners, 2 Shields and 4 armor. Pretty sure that'll beat any close range brawler fleet without torpedoes or pd Auto cannons are so good. Glad to see them get some love. Giga cannons seem to only be good against the unbidden since armor is king in this patch
This is a reliable design for me as well. All of the weapons are very long range so it does not matter how the combat computer calculates the range to fight from it will end up with a big number and stay at range.
Strike craft has higher engagement range, i think battleships start turning away *before* they use all tachyon lances, since those have limited firing angle.
Battleships with spinal mounts will stop to turn around to shoot, making their speed bonuses worthless. Having the carrier bow means they'll continue to try to kite at range
Why even bother with lasers if you have access to nanite AC they are already almost a tier 1 plasma vs armor but deal 3 times more dmg vs hull than tier 3 plasma... You can see it on the log gamma are at the bottom far behind for hull but AC is still close to laser for armor. If you can reach close range there is no real contender except torps vs BB (that make those BB irrelevant). It is a rare one tier above specialized weapon after all.
That is something I am going to have to test out some more and see if it is worth while to just run all AC. Would probably need all after burners to close range quickly and keep within range as even the L slot is only 40 range.
If you enjoyed this video, please hit the like button and subscribe to my channel, it helps my videos get more viewers, more attention which helps my channel to grow.
I have created a gaming community on Discord, if you want to chat, talk with others who play strategy games, keep up to date with new videos or maybe join in multiplayer games, feel free to join my discord. If you have ideas on videos you would like to see or some other form of comment, send me a message on discord or here. discord.gg/ynAdAGYKKf
Consider joining this channel to show your support for the video's that I make. It helps me to keep this channel growing and providing more content and to get access to perks:
ua-cam.com/channels/LJ1CRQN9vkjstRLyRU3G9w.htmljoin
"I like lasers over plasma because of their accuracy" But you are running AI Line computer that puts plasma to 100%. I run laser, autocannon on my corvettes because they don't get line computers.
I know but I want to test some Battleship designs that can close the distance and brawl it out at closer ranges. Against ships with torpedo's this would not work but you would always have screening ships anyway and I may test fleet scenarios on this as well.
You run plasma because it does a better job than lasers, I run Lasers because they make a pretty lightshow
I still love plasma, I should do some testing comparing those battles but swapping those lasers for plasma and see if it changes the results. Going to be fun testing all these brawler type designs for battleships as I don’t think anyone has done it previously at least not videos of it.
Can't wait to see more tests.
Glad you enjoy them. Do you have any requests for a video you would like to see.
I might have considered running 2 large Lasers and 4 medium Autocannons. Unless you have need of better tracking, larger Lasers tend to offer better damage and range. Autocannons, by contrast, benefit far more from their better rate of fire, so 2 medium autocannons tend to out-damage 1 Large.
Otherwise, though, it might be worth considering Medium Gauss Cannons instead of autocannons for their better range.
EDIT: The issue in your last few tests may be an issue damage dispersal. As I understand it, Bypass weapons like missiles and strike craft tend to prioritize targets with shields, so their secondary fire is scattered among the shielded targets. By contrast, energy weapons focus on ships without shields; once the Lances breach the enemy shields, the Lasers can all converge on the vulnerable unshielded target to quickly finish them off. This means they finish off targets very quickly, rather than trying to fight the entire fleet at once.
I will do some more testing with the auto cannons as you suggest. With the last few battles, I am going to do some testing now to see if it is the hardening or as you say the damage being dispersed which it could be.
with the last couple of tests I think it was down to the L lasers having only a few targets as the carrier fleet spread out, this caused all the damage to hit a few ships where as the carrier fleet's attack was spread across the whole fleet.
What I was really look at if you look at nearly every battle, the opening 10 seconds the opposing fleet to the Lasers/Auto Cannons loses 6-8 ships in the opening alpha strike but the Autocannon fleet did not, not in any test. I actually think it might be something to do with armor/shield hardening not functioning correctly and blocking part of all damage and not just penetration weapons, but I need to do more testing on this which I will tomorrow. If it is not that then it must be another cause.
@@tachyonlance1969 I still think it is due to the random aspect of weapons you have 1000+ rolls possible per ship for tachyon and almost 1700 for arc :s You will need a LOT of tests to see if hardening is bugged without access to weapons damage. I have seen nothing in mirror tests and even in test with shields disparity sometimes weakest fleet can massively win when X slot is involved. Reason why I hate arc even if it is good without hardening when you try to kill FE early and your first two salvos are low rolls you are screwed pretty hard.
Yes RNG can play a big roll on it, I plan to do a lot of testing on it today to see if it is just weapon RNG or if it is hardening tech not working right. I will use two fleets exactly the same bit one will have hardening and the other not, no one will have bypass weapons so it should give me some good info of hardening is working as intended or if it is something else I have missed.
Regarding that 6th battle, the carrier fleet began dispersing well before any tachyon lances fired. By the time the tachyons could fire the compact Yamato fleet was presented with a long line of targets with the center of the line being much closer than either end. The Yamato fleet concentrated its fire on the targets that were closest and achieved kills. When the lasers fire they can be seen to be concentrated upon only 3 or 4 ships. Another question to ask is why did the carriers equipped with 3 afterburners and carrier combat computers get into range of laser fire instead of kiting more effectively? I wonder if leaving the P slots unpopulated would change the behavior of the carriers.
Good question and observation. I plan to do a lot of testing to get to the bottom of this so I will try out your suggestions in the next videos.
This is also to do with the spinal mounts on the carriers, as it forces the ship to turn and fire due to firing arc. Going to redo some tests with the carrier but without a spinal mount. See how it turns out.
Try an arc emmiter in the x slot, a single carrier and whirlwind missles in every other slot with 3 afterburners, 2 Shields and 4 armor. Pretty sure that'll beat any close range brawler fleet without torpedoes or pd
Auto cannons are so good. Glad to see them get some love. Giga cannons seem to only be good against the unbidden since armor is king in this patch
Ok nice build. I will try and find some love for the giga cannon for you in the future.
This is a reliable design for me as well. All of the weapons are very long range so it does not matter how the combat computer calculates the range to fight from it will end up with a big number and stay at range.
Going to give it a try myself soon enough, looks good.
Strike craft has higher engagement range, i think battleships start turning away *before* they use all tachyon lances, since those have limited firing angle.
Firing arcs are a constant problem, it is why missiles are so good and cloud lighting, no firing arc.
Battleships with spinal mounts will stop to turn around to shoot, making their speed bonuses worthless. Having the carrier bow means they'll continue to try to kite at range
Yes that is right. I do have a full carrier design might test in next video as I have a number of things I would like to try.
Can we wait to menacing ship guide as you do to fallen empier ships?
I will be doing one very soon. I might try and start to do that this weekend, would be a number of videos I think to cover all of it.
Why even bother with lasers if you have access to nanite AC they are already almost a tier 1 plasma vs armor but deal 3 times more dmg vs hull than tier 3 plasma... You can see it on the log gamma are at the bottom far behind for hull but AC is still close to laser for armor. If you can reach close range there is no real contender except torps vs BB (that make those BB irrelevant). It is a rare one tier above specialized weapon after all.
That is something I am going to have to test out some more and see if it is worth while to just run all AC. Would probably need all after burners to close range quickly and keep within range as even the L slot is only 40 range.