V0.82 04/15/03 Revamped DF weapon tables and analysis
Copyright 2003 Mario Laubacher (Alastair)
Send comments, feedback, additions or corrections to alastair412@yahoo.com,
mentioning the FAQ's name in the subject header.
Flames or comments on the quality of MOO3 will go straight to /dev/null.
"ARTHUR: Consult the Book of Armaments!
BROTHER MAYNARD: Armaments, Chapter Two, verses Nine to Twenty-one.
SECOND BROTHER: And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying,
'O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine
enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and the people did
feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and
breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu--
MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother." -- Monty Python's Holy Grail
Contents
========
1 Introduction and Legal Notice
2 Revision History
3 Design Guidelines
3.A When to redesign
3.B Specialized vs. Combined Arms
3.C Point Defense
3.D Comparing Weapon Types
3.E Missiles and Racks
3.F Defense
3.G Electronics
3.H Speed
3.I Ship types and TFs
3.J Target Saturation
4 Hull Table
5 Defense Tables
6 Direct Fire Tables
7 Fighter Tables
8 Missile Tables
9 Electronics
10 Misc techs
11 Credits and Thanks
12 Hosting Information
This FAQ covers Master Of Orion 3's ship design and weaponry.
This FAQ is copyrighted by Alastair (Mario Laubacher), and may not be published
without my consent. If you wish to maintain a copy of this document on your
site, please send me an e-mail at alastair412@yahoo.com.
This may be not be reproduced under any circumstances except for personal,
private use. Use of this guide on any other web site or as a part of any public
display without written permission is strictly prohibited, and a violation of
copyright.
Master of Orion 3 (MOO3) is copyrighted and trademarked by Quicksilver and
Infogrames.
Acronyms used:
The following will appear in the FAQ quite often:
TF Taskforce
IF Indirect Fire weapons (Missiles)
DF Direct Fire weapons
LR / LRS Long Range Ships
SR / SRS Short Range Ships
Hulls acronyms
LC Light Cruiser
CR Cruiser
BC Battle Cruiser
BS Battleship
DN Dreadnought
SDN Super Dreadnought
/====================\
==================== ¦ 2 Version History ¦ ==================================
\====================/
03/21/03 v0.5 Working version (not published).
03/24/03 v0.6 Initial Release.
03/25/03 v0.7 DF weapon analysis done, added Ch. 7and 9, acronyms and some
other fixes here and there.
03/26/03 v0.72 Corrections and fixes on armor, PD and fighters
04/14/03 v0.8 Added missiles, included data patch corrections, drives,
new section delving into target saturation (3.J) and more.
04/15/03 v0.82 Revamped DF weapon tables and analysis, fixed some data,
included additional insight on missile payload and a reader
submission on cloaking / detection.
--------------( 3.A When to redesign )----------------------------------------
----------------------
With a wealth of techs and weaponry available, the timing for redesign is
quite important. Several options are available, but in general terms, I
recommend redesigning in the following situations:
- New warp drive: Speed is crucial. The faster your ships travel down those
jump lanes, the better your ability to keep the initiative or to react to AI
actions. Further, newer drives take up less space per speed units (this also
applies to system drives, BTW).
- New hull type: what's the use of getting that shiny Leviathan hull if you
don't use it? Superior hull space packs more firepower - use it to your
advantage. I don't necessarily redesign other hulls at that point, though.
- New weaponry: I don't prioritize that part myself. There are a few weapon
techs which almost beg for a full redesign, though, mainly Lightning fields.
Normally, I obsolete old types within 3 turns of a full redesign. Your mileage
may vary, though.
Finally, I scrap obsolete reserves as soon as a sizeable reserve of a superior
design is available, which means between 10 and 20 turns of introducing the
new designs.
In relationship with Antaran expeditions, note that launching one will pull
the required amount of ships from your reserves, apparently at random
(excluding transports, colony and outpost). To have better control on what
gets sent out, scrap what you don't need or put it into active taskforces.
On the matter of transports, you'll have noticed that MOO3 has a tendency to
overdo transport building. This is a recognized bug adressed in the upcomming
patch. In the meantime, make sure you obsolete any transports as soon as you
have suitable reserves.
--------------( 3.B Specialized vs. Combined Arms )---------------------------
-----------------------------------
When building cruiser and bigger hulls, you tend to get enough space to
seriously consider whether you want a "pure" design per ship type or rather
"mixed" weaponry.
Obviously, a "pure" design will pack more damage for the weapon type of
your choice. However, this comes at the cost of versability both in offense
and defense. We'll comment briefly on the pros and cons of each weapon group
a bit later on, but my personal preference goes to "mixed" designs. Whatever
your choice, though, keep in mind that combined arms brings a huge advantage
in being able to confront any situations. If you go for "pure" ship designs,
try at least to mix your ship types when assembling a new TF, even in the main
body.
--------------( 3.C Point Defense )-------------------------------------------
-------------------
Currently, before the code patch gets released, PD is broken. You can't count
on PD weaponry to protect your fleet against incoming missiles, which can lead
to severe losses.
However, there is a workaround: it appears that as long as your ships have any
missiles left, the PD weapons will do their job. Hence make sure to equip all
your ships with one single rack of Nuclear warheads (PD mount does fine). Some
people recommend always putting 20 of them. This is not necessary in all
situations, though, as you can waste valuable space doing so. Your PD weapons
will fire as long as the rack isn't empty - so if you're quite ahead in the
tech race, 8-12 missiles will do nicely. This is related to the duration of
your battles: if most fights end within 3 minutes, chances are you won't be
able to deplete even 8 missiles.
Zhaneel also mentions that the PD bug can be completely offset by issuing
a patrol command (without the missile racks). I haven't verified this myself,
also note that for my taste, it limits my actions too much.
In terms of equipment, my preference goes to a combination of PD-mounted
phaser beams coupled with a second series of light-mount phaser beams. While
damage is equal, the light mount exchanges range for rate of fire. In practice
though, I find it an advantage to be able to fire a few shots at incoming
missiles from farther away, diminishing the amount of work the PDs have to
perform to shoot down what's left.
After analyzing the weapon tables, I would recommed replacing phasers with
disruptor cannons once you have all improvements researched for it. See
the analysis in the DF weapon tables for a rundown.
For fighter protection, the most efficient PD weapon by far are lightning
fields. If they aren't on your tech tree, your scientific spies and your
diplomats should work overtime to get it - it's just too invaluable to miss.
Quicksilver posted a first (unnumbered) data patch. One of the huge changes in
there affects missiles and the PD bug. While missile damage has been cut in
half, the rate of fire has been vastly increased. Which means that you'll
shoot your missile complement out pretty quick - and so does your opponent.
In terms of PD workaround, be aware that your PD racks will empty much faster
now than before, so if you stick to PD racks, favor 20 missiles over 8-12 :)
--------------( 3.D Comparing Weapon Types )----------------------------------
----------------------------
As you will have noticed, MOO3 offers three weapon types: direct fire,
fighters and missiles. Here's a rapid rundown of the pros and cons of each
type:
Direct fire
Pros:
- unlimited firepower
- vast choice of mounts
- Good damage
- Lots of modifications
Cons:
- Maximal range / damage requires a lot of space
- The truly damaging mounts have a very low rate of fire
- Can't be used to bombard planets
Fighters
Pros:
- Unlimited supply
- Virtually unlimited range
- Deep scouting
- Expendable targets for enemy missiles and fighters
Cons:
- Need to lose a complete squadron before a new one is generated
- Low speed
- "Fish school" flight AI
Missiles
Pros:
- Best damage / weight ratio (only pre-data patch!)
- Speed
Cons:
- Grouped targetting wastes a whole volley in overkill
- Limited supply
This quick comparison explains my preference for mixed designs. At the very
least, both my carriers and IF have at least one spinal-type beam weapon so
they aren't useless once their last volley has been fired or their fighter
complement is out fighting planetside while a SR TF approaches your ships.
To maximize the weaponry effect for fighters and missiles, when fighting near
armed planets, I always select each TF and target the planet every 5 seconds
to make sure all my indirect weaponry is in flight and ready to react to
enemy TFs popping up midway. Usually, the first or second volley wipes out
planetary bases, leaving the rest available to re-acquire whatever target lies
in-between.
The benefits of using lots of fighters in any fleet can't be stressed enough.
They provide deep recon by forcing enemy ships to uncloack when firing,
and plenty of distraction for fighters and especially missiles.
When a 1000-damage warhead blows up a 30-HP fighter, that's 970 damage gone to
waste. Of course, this works both ways. Note that normally, though, with
decent cloaking and ECM on your TFs, the AI seems incapable of targetting your
main fleets, giving the human player a distinct advantage. To maximize this,
use the launch method described above as soon as you have a target.
The data patch has changed missiles: half damage, but a much quicker rate of
fire. In practice, this means you'll apply much more damage in a shorter
timeframe. This also means your IF ships will end up as sitting ducks within
one and two minutes of combat, and if you still got serious opposition at that
time, too bad: your fleet's efficiency is severely hampered.
Now more than ever, I am comforted in my mixed design approach.
Major difference is that I find I don't build any IF-type ships at all
anymore by now, just LR, PD, reco and carriers.
--------------( 3.E Missiles and Racks )--------------------------------------
------------------------
When designing your missile complement, keep in mind that there are two weight
components: individual missile weight and rack weight. Adding several racks
ensures larger volleys being shot, adding more missiles per rack ensure that
more volleys can be shot. On large hulls, I tend to limit myself to 5 racks,
counting 5+ missiles per rack. But this is also due to my preference for mixed
designs, as the rest of the space gets occupied by a bunch of fighters and a
couple of Spinal+ direct fire weapons.
Note that the heavy chassis sports the best damage / space ratio. Avoid using
torpedoes.
--------------( 3.F Defense )-------------------------------------------------
-------------
Armor doesn't take up space, but tends to cost a lot. Shields are relatively
cheap compared to armor, but take up quite a bit of space, have less stopping
power, and tend to get depleted pretty quick.
Hence I usually boost industry DEAs on 5-10 size-12 planets and skip shields
altogether.
When in need for shielding, though (the enemy is close in techs or ahead of
me in techs), I go for damper fields as soon as they are available. Although
they are weaker in sheer power than Class VII+ shields, they recharge to full
strength every 5 seconds, never running out, while traditional shields run
out after 1-2 blasts.
--------------( 3.G Electronics )---------------------------------------------
-----------------
Due to the lack of explanations on the manual, some confusion exists about the
respective effect of ECM and ECCM.
To summarize what those _should_ do:
- ECM jam enemy battle computers, rendering the detection of your TFs more
difficult
- ECCM unscrambles your own battle computers.
ECM and ECCM of the same level cancel each other out. However, contrary to
some people's assumption, this doesn't mean that having both in your TFs makes
them usueless. By design, they are matched against enemy devices, not your
own.
But where to place them?
Putting both devices on the same ship is a pure waste of space. ECM is a
defensive device, it is probably best placed on your PD ships. ECCM, on the
other hand, is a detection device, and it's best located on your recon ships.
Note that ECM protects your whole TF to a point, while ECCM, like the scan
devices, work a tad differently.
In MOO3, whenever one single ship notices an enemy ship or weapon, your whole
fleet sees them at once.
In practice, the computer adds up all the values of each individual ECM in
your fleet and matches them against the total of the opposing ECCM. If your
ECM values (see the tech tables below) totals are higher, your fleet will be
protected. If it's lower, it won't - and vice versa.
Cloaking: I haven't had much time to delve into specifics so far, but from a
cursory look, it seems to have two effects: a visual cloaking value, and an
ECM value. There's a big difference, though: The weakest cloak's ECM value is
as good as ECM V... for a much smaller space and a ludicrously low cost.
Which would mean that using any ECM device over cloaking is just a waste of
space and money as long as you're ahead in the tech race.
*sigh*. Yet another area where a better manual would have helped... I miss
SMAC / SMAX's detailed encyclopedia...
Note that contrary to ECM, ECCM and detection devices, cloaks can't be
stacked. Which means it's usually a good idea to have your PD ships adding
to your TF's total jamming value.
--------------( 3.H Speed )---------------------------------------------------
-----------
As my tactics mainly involve sniping from afar or using missiles with
fighters, planet-side fights don't recquire a lot of speed.
That doesn't mean you should spare the space and drop your system drive speed
to 1 - when flying interception missions or fighting a guardian, your IF and
carriers are exposed, as they won't launch their weaponry before they spot a
target.
I tend to have my system drives at 60%-75% of max speed at any times. For LRs,
which need a bit more mobility, I usually select 80% of max speed.
Note that your TFs will (obviously) always move at the speed of your slowest
ship within that TF, so keep that in mind when designing and assembling your
TFs.
--------------( 3.I Ship types and TFs )--------------------------------------
------------------------
Apart from the obvious like colony and outpost ships, what to build?
As highlighted in the weapon comparison, carriers and IF ships pretty much own
the battlefield, especially when building mixed designs or at least mixed TFs.
In complement to carriers and IF ships, I build a set of mixed LRS as well, to
add some punch to my TFs when combat becomes more close and personal.
I don't like SR ships nor SR TFs. They simply have to get too close to be
effective - which means lots of losses. Also, to be effective, you would
probably want to go for full speed and shields - at the expense of firepower.
I tend to have several hull sizes per ship type, so that all my planets can
contribute to the building effort.
For TFs, I build nothing but armadas for offense fleets. A carrier armada
sports the following combination:
- 1-2 cap-ship carriers (by turn 200+, titans or bigger)
- 4-5 smaller carriers (by turn 200+, BC to SDN)
- 1 cap IF
- 4 smaller IFs
- 1 big LRS (DN or better)
Escort ring:
- 2 PD ships (currently one LC and one BC)
- 2 BC+-sized LRS
Picket ring:
- 2 medium-sized reco
IF armadas are currently very similar, I usually only invert the carrier and
IF ship numbers. In practice, however, as I use mixed ship designs as well, I
tend to limit myself to building IF TFs, unless I run out of IF cap ships.
Note that in combat, you are limited to 10 TFs per assault. The CPU selects
your best TFs present in the system to do the job.
This _seems_ to exclude system ships and orbitals, but I need to confirm this
sometime soon.
One use I have for SR TFs is to build one brand of mid-sized SR ships,
and include sensor-heavy recon ships in the TFs. I group them in smaller
TFs and use them as detectors / decoys in heavily defended and cloacked areas,
typically guardians and Orion. Those throwaway TFs don't survive for long, but
usually allow to detect the opponent and attract its fire without risking the
lives of my main (and expensive) armadas.
--------------( 3.J Target Saturation )---------------------------------------
----------------------
To summarize some things which are scattered throughout this FAQ, let me
formally introduce the notion of target saturation.
In MOO3 terms, saturation means offering your opponent multiple distractions
aside from your main fleet.
The more advanced targets lie between your TFs and the opponent, the less the
risk that a heavy missile volley reaches your ships. Saturation is a huge
boost to defense, and costly to overcome in offense.
Saturation is best achieved by massive fighter groups (hence again one
advantage to using mixed designs). When you reach Cruiser hull size, try to
have all your main ships carrying at least 5 interceptors - that's 60
additional targets to absorb one missile volley flying ahead of your ships.
Saturation also works well for missile volleys themselves: the more missiles
per volley, the more you'll get through the opponent's PD walls.
To counter saturation is much more difficult. In solo, that's no issue: the AI
doesn't use it. But in multiplayer, this could become tricky very quick. The
keys to overcome fighter saturation would be lightning field and light-mounted
PD weaponry.
I would venture that on large-scale battles involving two high-tech human
players, a winning fleet setup would involve the following:
- Cruiser+ PD ships, sporting 10+ Lighting Field Generators, Damper Fields,
a handful of long-range direct fire beams and scores of light-mounted PDs
- Reco ships, perhaps the same size, packed with electronics, LFG and Dampers
- Cap ships Titan+, at least 10 ion dual-pod fighters, LFG, good PD beams and
some serious long-ranged beam bruising capabilities. Missile set-up is tricky
here: It's perhaps better to have less racks with more missiles in order to
outlast enemy saturation. Just a hunch, though.
Now for the fleet buildup, assuming you're able to sport 10 armadas, Id' try
out 7 Carrier armadas patrolling in the farthest edge of the map, and 3 PD
armadas patrolling about 3 squares ahead of them. Make sure your 7 carriers
send out 4-5 missile volleys and their fighter complement at once. When an
enemy TF becomes visible, don't group-target more than two armadas at the
same time - wait about 3-5 seconds before targetting with 2 more TFs. When
the enemy missile stream starts to trickle down, carefully close in for the
kill, and let your beams and fighters do the job from afar.
Alternatively, I could suggest building one reco TF with Titan+ sized scouts:
ultra-heavy armor, full damper fields, full cloak, scanners and jammers, and
a bunch of short-ranged beams. Wait 'till the initial missile exchange
trickles down, then send this one forward a bit outside of the direct path
between your main TFs and where the opponent seemed to launch his stuff from.
Use this special TFs for both reconnaissance and decoy purposes.
Those are just ideas, BTW, none of them field-tested, as I don't multiplay.
As with all such games, it's just theorycraft - if you get wasted by a better
opponent, don't just curse me: learn from your opponent, and if you would,
send me an email telling me where the above theories fall severly short.
Remember this old military maxim: no plan survives enemy contact.
This section owes to an e-mail sent to me by Mark Reyhner, who noted that for
fighters, Death Ray offered a better raw dmg / spc and Firedefay ratio than
the rest. After thinking about it, though, I'll favour Dual-podded Ion
fighters because of saturation, until armor piercing gets back in.
--------------( Hull Sizes )--------------------------------------------------
----------
The data patch halves all hull base costs. Tables have been updated.
///Updated v0.82
Zhaneel reminded me that in the patch documentation, this halving supposedly
applies only to orbitals and system ships. This led me to re-browse the tech
tables.
This results in the following distinctions between the ship classes (numbers
are multipliers over base values):
Class Cost Capacity
------------------------------
Orbitals 0.66 1.5
System Ships 0.75 1.33
Starships 1 1
In short, you fit more stuff for less money on orbitals and system ships, PLUS
you spare the space for warp drives. This gives defenders a big theoretical
advantage, offset by the fact that, when defending a planet, you can't launch
your mobile weaponry before an enemy taskforce uncloaks.
Possible strategy in multiplayer: don't build planetary defense bases at all -
you'll deprive an opponent of an initial target, which negates his saturation
advantage and forces him to close in and expose himself.
When you have both orbitals and system ships, move your system TFs away
sideways from the planet towards the farther edge of the map (where your
opponents TF's are hiding), so that he only spots your orbitals, then
move in sideways, lauch your mobile weaponry and aim for the kill.
In such a strategy, as orbitals are sitting ducks anyway, give them scores
of the longest-range DFs on ultra spinal mounts, and use the extra space to
add at least standard damper fields. That should be enough to field a serious
defense.
Finally, regarding orbitals, you can have 4 orbitals around your planet, and
three more per moon. Ethereans with their preference for huge gas giants which
are surrounded by lots of moons have a distinct racial advantage for defense
over all other races here.
///
Notes:
The advantage of bigger sizes are of course their sheer payload. On the other
hand, though, their cost can become quite a burden on your PP. Keep track of
your production capacities: A behemoth-sized ship requires you have at least
a couple of worlds capable of churning out 7000+ PPs per turn in order to get
built at a reasonable pace.
Type CostMult ArmorMult DeflectMult
-----------------------------------------------------------
No Armor 0 0 0
Very Light Armor (VLA) 0.75 0.50 0.5
Light Armor (LA) 1.00 1.00 0.66
Medium Armor (MA) 3.00 2.00 1
Heavy Armor (HA) 7.00 4.00 1.5
Very Heavy Armor (VHA) 12.00 8.00 1.75
Ultra Heavy Armor (UHA) 18.00 16.00 2
Notes:
When selecting building VHA or UHA ships, note that going for lower type + UHA
will be much cheaper (hence faster to build), at the expense of about 25%-40% in
deflection value. But it might be worth considering.
Shield Generators come in three variants: small, standard, and large.
Each size provides 1.5x regen rates and shield str over the smaller size,
but cost and space doubles every time. If you need the space, absolutely
prefer better armor and smaller generator.
There are 10 shield types plus Damper fields available. For an increase
in cost, each size gives you better defletion values and recharge rates, at
the same space cost - therefore only cost is a consideration when deciding on
the type you need.
Notes:
Traditional shield purchasing gets completely outclassed if you manage to
research Damper fields. Damper fields cost quite a bit more than normal
shields, and take thrice the space, but they regenerate their whole strength
every 5 seconds. Although technically, the shield resistance for class VII+ is
better, it gets chipped away with every shot, usually way faster than its
recharge rate. Meanwhile, your damper fields keep recharging until the end of
the battle.
/=======================\
==================== ¦ 6 Direct Fire Tables ¦ ===============================
\=======================/
--------------( Mounts )------------------------------------------------------
------
Legend:
-------
Spc = Space multiplier
Cost = Cost multiplier
Dmg = Dmg multiplier (affects both NearDmg and FarDmg)
DistMult = Distance multiplier (affects DmgDis, AccDis and MaxRange)
FireDlay = Fire Delay mulitplier
Name Spc Cost Dmg Dist Fire
Mult Dlay
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Defense(1) 0.8 1.0 0.33 0.75 0.75
Light Mount 0.8 0.75 0.8 0.8 0.8
Standard Mount 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Heavy Mount 1.75 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2
Very Heavy Mount 2.75 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.4
Ultra Heavy Mount 4.0 4.0 2.5 2.1 1.6
Spinal Mount 1.5 3.5 2.0 1.5 2.2
Improved Spinal Mount 2.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.5
Ultra Spinal Mount 3.0 7.0 5.0 2.5 5
(1) PD has MultFire value of 2. Which means a PD should shoot twice as much
as any other mount. In practice, it doesn't work. Yet another bug.
Note that Ultra Heavy Mounts are better than Spinals and Improved Spinals,
at the expense of space and cost. The lower Fire Delay is also worth
considering.
In practice, you can fit twice as much Improved Spinals than Ultra Heavies,
but they will fire less than half often. If cost is a factor (because your
production capabilities are an issue), though, prefer Ultra Heavy Mounts.
--------------( Weapons )-----------------------------------------------------
-------
///Update v0.82
On reader request, the tables have been merged, and more comparative data
has been included. Comparisons by type of weapons have been moved to the
bottom. Also, there is now an Efficiency Chart below the weaons tables.
///
Legend:
-------
FireDlay = Delay between two shots
MultFire = # of shots fired per salvo
NearDmg = The weapon's max damage, applied between point-blank and DmgDisSt
FarDmg = The weapon's min damage, applied between point-blank and MaxRng
DmgDisSt = The distance between point-blank and the point where damage
starts to decrease.
MaxAcc = The maximum accuracy at AccDisSt? orMaxRng? No way to know.
AccDisSt = The distance between point-blank and the point where accuracy
starts to decrease. The decay is not known.
MaxRng = The max range at which the weapon will manage to hit a target /
deal any damage
Cost = The cost in AU.
Spc = The space used.
ShldPen = Shield Penetration. Not certain how the value is used.
ArmrPierc = Armour Piercing. Not used in the game atm. (1)
Type = The weapon type.
Improvements:
M1 / M2 = Miniaturization: Space * .8 per level (both = space *.64)
I = Improved: NearDmg * 1.5, FarDmg * 1.1
AP = Armor Piercing: ArmorPierc *.75, Space * 1.5 (1)
AF = AutoFire: MultFire * 3, Space *2
C = Continuous: Accuracy *1.5, Space * 1.25
E = Envelopping: ShieldPen *.5, Space *1.66
(1) It looks like all tests indicate that ArmorPiercing has been entirely
removed from the game. I don't really take those into account when
evaluating weapons atm, and a good thing it is, since if this does get
patched back in, this could severely affect weapon effectiveness.
This means that at this moment, using AP improvement is a good way to
waste space for no effect.
Visage on the official boards verified that multiple firing always goes to one
single target per "shooting round". Which means that if the first true shot
kills your target, the rest gets wasted.
///New v0.82
Several tests performed by Visage tend to indicate that the dropoff in
damage due to distance isn't linear - in fact, most of the dropoff occurs
near MaxRange.
///
Name Cost Spc Shld Armr Type Improvements
Pen Pier
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laser 5 10 1 1 Beam M1, M2, I, AP, AF, C
Mass Driver 9 22 1 1 Mass M1, M2, I, AP, AF
Fusion Beam 21 15 1 1 Plasma M1, M2, I, C, E
Quark Cannon 10 12 0.9 1 Particle M1, M2, I,
Hard Beam 10 7 1 1 Beam M1, M2, I,
Rail Gun 20 13 1 1 Mass M1, M2, I,
Neutron Blaster 22 15 0.9 1 Particle M1, M2, I, C
Hellfire Cannon 45 19 1 1 Plasma M1, M2, I,
Graviton Beam 33 18 0.9 1 Particle M1, M2, I, C
Ion Pulse Cannon 22 10 1 0.8 Beam M1, M2, I, AF
Particle Beam 33 18 0.1 0.9 Particle
Phasers 32 14 1 1 Beam M1, M2, I, C, AF, AP
Gauss Cannon 64 27 1 1 Mass M1, M2, I, AP, AF
Lightning Field Gen 24 10 0.7 0.7 Plasma M1, M2, I,
Plasma Cannon 142 44 1 1 Plasma M1, M2, I, C
Dark Energy Beam 71 33 0.9 1 Particle M1, M2, I,
Disruptor Cannon 139 54 1 1 Mass M1, M2, I, AF
Death Ray 105 45 0.8 0.7 Particle
Disintegrator Beam 70 25 1 1 Beam M1, M2, I,
Megabolt Cannon 209 59 1 1 Plasma M1, M2, I,
Tachyon Beam 154 61 0.9 1 Particle M1, M2, I,
Mauler 453 113 0.5 1 Plasma M1, M2
Dark Matter Proj 302 95 1 1 Mass M1, M2, I,
Stellar Converter 666 495 1 1 Beam
Analysis per weapon type:
-------------------------
Beams:
Beams wield the longest range overall. However, this comes at a cost:
Both damage and accuracy are severly lowered at the longer ranges.
They also sport a good Damage / space ratio. They are very well-suited for PD
to standard mounts on short distances. If you plan to snipe from afar, though,
avoid beams.
Adding to their PD suitability is the fact that Ion Pulse and Phasers sport
the AutoFire improvement.
Note that the stellar converter, with a Fire Delay of 8 and a huge space cost
is simply not worth the trouble for a combat weapon. It's only use: converting
planets to ashes, period.
Mass Drivers:
Mass drivers have one huge thing going for them: damage remains constant over
distance. Their accuracy, however, is only 50%. This makes them a risky bet
to use as PD weapons, IMO.
///New v0.82
Also, due to the fact that most damage dropoff happens near MaxRange, their
advantage isn't really that great anyway.
///
In the early turns, never use mass drivers over lasers - they're just worse
all over the band.
For PDs, a decent late-game alternative to Phasers would be the Disruptor
cannon, though. It's range / damage ratio is almost 4 times better than
phasors for a slight cost increase, and it holds the AF improvement as well.
Also consider that you need 44 Phasors to match the damage of 10 disruptors -
making them longer to design. With the extra range, the disruptor has plenty
of time to shoot a second time if the first shot misses. A good investment for
cap ships.
Particle:
Particle weapons are quite similar to beams in general. However, their
Dmg / space ratio is none too impressive, the loss of damage on max distance
is bad.
Initially, the Death Ray would seem like a decent pick due to its short Fire
Delay. However, the absence of any improvements leaves is sorely outclassed.
Altogether, particles are just not worth the trouble. If you could steer your
research, I would never bother in the first place...
Plasma:
Plasma weapons offer the shortest max range, but pack an excellent Damage /
space ratio. They are altogether a tad lighter than their counterparts in
other DF weapon types.
Of all the plasma weapons available, the Megabolt Cannon is the best choice,
provided you manage to research or steal all three improvements available.
With a Fire Delay of 4, and a disappointing damage spread, the Mauler,
however, is just a waste of space.
///New v0.82
--------------( Efficiency Chart )--------------------------------------------
----------------
The efficiency chart shows how the weapons compare with each other based on
damage potential vs. space used, and the ranking depending on the way it is
being measured.
Analysis:
With this consolidated chart, things become quite obvious, now, don't they?
In particuliar, properly factoring in improvements demonstrates clearly what
I introduced a couple of versions ago: Disruptor Cannons own the late-game,
especially as PD weapons.
At 3rd place, the Gauss Cannon ought to be your mid / late game pick if you're
building short-range ships and TFs.
For Late-Game LR ships / TFs, the Dark Matter Projector is an excellent
solution despite the accuracy penalty - consider however the Megabolt cannon
as an add-on to improve MaxRange accuracy.
There's still the special case of the Ion Pulse Cannon: If ArmorPiercing gets
patched back in, expect its rating to drop several ranks. Use with caution.
For early-game PD, use Hard Beams or Hellfire Cannons, then switch to Phasers
until you get the Disruptor Cannons and their improvements.
As hinted earlier, skip Mass Drivers altogether, and do whatever it takes to
research Quark Cannon before you get involved in early-game fights - you'll
dominate any enemy ships equipped with the first handfull of techs.
///
--------------( Bottomline )--------------------------------------------------
----------
///Revised v0.82
Altogether, consider DF weapons to be first support and defense weaponry.
Sure, on short ranges, they are well worth the trouble, but short range comes
with higher casualties OR requires additional shielding (which removes space
for more firepower).
If you applied the first data patch, though, with the missile nerfs, you'll
find equipping all your ships with 1-2 Ultra Heavy or Ultra Spinal mounted
weapons in exchange of 1 missile less per rack a more than worthy tradeoff.
///
For a serious bruising effect, Ultra Spinal Mounts transform the weakest DF
into a serious threat - but the FireDly gets huge as well.
However, consider this: If your first shot is a guaranteed kill, you don't
need to worry about FireDly for the second one. Plus, on the range bonus
granted, 5 seconds more just means an already severly diminished TF closes
in a tiny bit, exposing itself to heavier damage on the second shot.
--------------( General Data and abbreviations )------------------------------
------------------------------
FireDlay = Delay between two shots
MultFire = # of shots fired per salvo
NearDmg = The weapon's max damage, applied between point-blank and DmgDisSt
FarDmg = The weapon's min damage, applied between point-blank and DmgDisEn
DmgDisSt = The distance between point-blank and the point where damage
starts to decrease.
DmgDisEn = The max range at which the weapon will do any damage.
MaxAccry = The maximum accuracy at AccDisSt? or AccDisEn? No way to know.
AccDisSt = The distance between point-blank and the point where accuracy
starts to decrease. The decay is not known.
AccDisEn = The max range at which the weapon will manage to hit a target.
Cost = The cost in AU.
Space = The space used.
ShldPen = Shield Penetration.
ArmrPierc = Armour Piercing. Not used in the game.
Size = Currently used to determine the fighter's base HP.
Improvements:
AP = Armor Piercing: ArmorPierc *.75, Space * 1.5
AF = AutoFire: MultFire * 3, Space *2
DP = DualPod: MultFire * 2, Space *1.8
E = Envelopping: ShieldPen *.5, Space *1.66
Notes:
- Fragility and DamagCap have been removed from the tables, as they seem to
lack any tangible effect. For base HP, it seems size is considered - has been
added to the tables.
- Armor Piercing doesn't work. Don't pick that!
--------------( Chassis )-----------------------------------------------------
-------
Note that as for DF mounts, the values indicated are multipliers over the base
value for each fighter.
Type Space Cost NearDmg FarDmg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interceptor Chassis 1.5 1 1 1
Space Control Chassis 3 2.5 1.4 1.2
Visage on the official board points out that with double space versus just
40% damage bonus, Space Control Chassis isn't worth it.
Indeed, with only interceptors, you get twice as many fighters and hence
twice as many shots...
Note, however, that while Space Control fighters seem to participate in
planetary bombardment, interceptors don't. If someone finds out otherwise,
drop me a mail - due to my mixed ship designs, I'm usually not in a position
to check that out myself.
--------------( Bottomline )--------------------------------------------------
----------
^>From those tables, the best fighter to use is the Phasors Fighter with Dual
Pods. It has the best Dmg/Space ratio and the best Dmg/cost ratio. It is,
comparatively, dirt cheap and small.
Even though sheer firepower is rather small and Fragility is very low, you can
safely swarm out any opposing force with dozens of fighters, which means an
equivalent amount of targets to shoot down.
Important note: AP doesn't have any effect right now. This also means that
until ArmorPiercing gets patched in, the best fighter could actually be the
Ion Pulse cannon: they have thrice the HP of phaser fighters, and both lower
cost and space.
After applying the data patch, note that damage and cost for missiles have
been halved, while space has been _slightly_ lowered. At the same time,
the Fire Delay has been reduced a lot.
--------------( Warhead Chassis )---------------------------------------------
---------------
As for DF mounts, all values are multipliers of the warhead's base values.
Tags should be self-explanatory by now.
Notes:
A quick scan of the Dmg / Spc calculation shows that you'll get the most
out of Heavy Missile Chassis. In that respect, the Torpedo Chassis is a
complete waste of space and money. Yes, sheer power matters, but it doesn't
matter that much. The difference in space can be used either for another rack
(larger volleys) or perhaps that extram DF weapon or fighter you need.
--------------( Warheads )----------------------------------------------------
--------
Those are the base values for each warhead types. Tags are self-explanatory.
Note that obviously, missiles don't suffer damage drop-off due to distance.
All missiles have an accuracy of 0.95 (omitted), a FireDelay of 45 (omitted),
and a target range (I read that as lock-on distance) of 40000 distance unit.
Current assumption set one square at roughly 4000 units, that means a missile
in-flight will lock on any target within 10 squares of their current position.
Notes:
Well, it seems like things are pretty clearcut for missiles.
The better the warhead tech, the better the dmg / spc ratio, without much
ado. When it comes to missiles, just get the best you can get, mount it on a
heavy missile chassis, and you know it's just going to be a major bruiser.
In terms of missiles per rack, remember the rules laid out in section 3 above:
Missiles use some space, and racks use some more space.
For your assault missiles, try to find the best balance between lasting power,
sheer damage and saturation (see section 3.J on that matter).
Regarding improvements, note that until Armor Piercing is patched in, don't
tick that box.
One final note: I haven't got a real clue about Warhead HP so far. Need to
delve into that topic anytime soon...
///New v0.82
TommyLV asked the following question on GameFaqs:
"Is it better to fire many missiles that do less damage each or fewer missiles
that do more damage per missile, total theoretical damage the same for each
volley?"
My reply:
That's actually a tricky question, for two reasons:
1. I don't have any hard data for missile HP values (neither for hulls, BTW,
but that's beside this point). So it's kinda hard to know if it's harder to
blow up a high-tech warhead or not.
2. Target saturation theory would recommend the double amount of missiles
based on the raw data.
But look at the table again, in particuliar in respect to raw damage,
respectively damage / space. One anionic energy warhead takes up 6 space,
compared to 12 for the energy pulsar. Thing is, two anionics bring a damage
potential of 164, vs 1231 for the energy pulsar.
In other terms, you need 7.6x the space for equal damage - and that's just
considering warhead space - you need also to add 8 more racks which also
consume some space.
Now, against a fighter, you'll clearly prefer the quantity, because most of
the damage gets wasted whenever an energy pulsar blows up a fighter. But
against a cap ship? Since space is limited anyway, you'll have, in practice,
20 anionics in a volley vs. 10 energy pulsars. Now let's assume that missile
hp is constant no matter the tech level, and that the enemy PD shoots down
consistently 9 incoming missiles: the 11 anionics going through will apply
902 damage, still 300 points less than the single energy pulsar.
The cut-off point where you need to worry is when enemy PD manages to shoot
down 10 missiles, because obviously, your high-power volley just got wasted...
Thing is, though, that the AI _never_ shoots volleys in numbers you could
achieve with fully mixed design ships in at least two TFs - which also means
that aside perhaps orions, nobody's gonna be able to stop volleys of 60some
per TF. So in solo, I'd recommend going for the high damage any day.
In multiplayer, it can become trickier depending on your opponent. If both
human players practice saturation tactics, I'd say at max techs, building
around High-Energy X-Ray or Scatter Packs is probably gonna yield
the best results.
As in 3.J, the last paragraph here remains largely theorycraft, as I don't
multiplay. By all means, send me feedback on my assumptions!
///
To evaluate jamming and sensors is a tricky business, as the formulas involved
in MOO3's calculations are probably anything but obvious stuff.
I've been fiddling with my spreadsheets for hours and still lack any clue
about a comprehensive formula about how Jamming / cloaking offsets detection.
My main issue is to try to calculate the effective detection range versus
jamming / cloaking, in other words, the distance beyond which a cloaked ship
will remain invisible for each device used.
In practice, detection devices use a value called OffTgtRg (Offense Target
Range?), which seems matched against DefTgtRg (Defense Target Range?) used
by cloaking devices.
Anyway, without more sterile ravings, here is the raw data. If someone can
find out exactly how MOO3 calculates Invisibility range vs. Detection range,
drop me an e-mail. I'm curious.
///New v0.82
TommyLV posted this on Gamefaqs:
For electronics here are my conclusions, they are reasonable but I make no
guarantee for their accuracy:
The values given for ECM's, ECCM's, Cloaks and Sensors are multipliers that
are made to the actual range to produce an apparent range. If the apparent
range is less than a certain value, the threshold detection value, then
detection occurs, if greater than the TDV then the target is still hidden.
All the ECM's in a TF are counted.
All the ECCM's in a TF are counted.
Only the best Sensor in the TF is counted. (Al: I'm sceptical here...)
Only the WORST Cloak in the TF is counted.
Every ship needs a Cloak in order not to give away the TF. This fact may
explain the enemies penchant for attacking Transports and Colony TFs, no one
gives these ships Cloaks and they are easily detected.
As for the worst Cloak being relevant, the easiest ship to see would be the
one that would give away the TF.
///
Cost Space DefTgtRg Cloaking
----------------------------------------------------
ECM I 30 15 1.12
ECM II 60 20 1.17
ECM III 120 35 1.33
ECM IV 240 55 1.6
ECM V 480 90 2.2
Cloaking Device 30 15 2.2 1.5
Phased Cloaking 30 20 3.3 1.8
Reactive Cloaking 30 35 4.95 3
Ghost Device 30 55 7.425 7.425
A quick glance on this table confirms that cloaking is both cheaper and more
effective than jamming (ECM devices). However, cloaks can't be stacked.
Also, cloaks have a Cloaking value. How this one is used is anyone's guess.
Possibly, DefTgRg works for missile acquisition and is offset by ECCM, while
Cloaking works for visual detection, and is only offset by sensors. If that is
the case, this would mean that missiles might be able to target a fleet,
while it remains untargettable by the main fleet? I wish I could do some
serious multiplayer testing for that, but that almost requires a second MOO3
CD - and this game is not THAT good.
Post data patch, most values have been changed, apparently without much rhyme
nor reason.
In short, ECCM and sensors _seem_ to have become more powerful than ECM again.
Without cloaking, detection has been made easier. In practice, I am under the
impression my latest tests find guardians much quicker than before. That might
be just me, though.
Small note: Warp Factor X's desc in the tech matrix window lists warp speed at
532, a copy-paste error...
For all drives, in most cases, better techs also use up less space, so keep
that in mind when designing.
Exceptions are Hydrogen fuel cells and Sub-light engines.
As I tend to cap off system speed at 3000 for most ship types, I redesign all
of them consistently after reaching Dotomite Crystals.
/=======================\
============== ¦ 11 Credits and Thanks ¦ =====================================
\=======================/
This FAQ owes to the various contributions posted on both Gamefaqs' and
Infogrames' official boards. Thanks to all the people who have posted their
initial findings and who have commented on those, in particuliar GothFather,
and Visage.
Ben mailed to point out that there's only one single Master not several -
that error has now been corrected on both my FAQs. Thanks a bunch!
Also thanks to Zhaneel and dakgm from the Gamefaqs boards for direct feedback.
/========================\
============= ¦ 12 Hosting Information ¦ =====================================
\========================/
The latest update of this document can usually be found on gamefaqs.com
Currently authorized hosts:
http://www.gamefaqs.com
http://www.actiontrip.com
http://www.neoseeker.com/
http://faqs.ign.com/
http://dlh.net/
http://moo3outpost.lacota.net/
