SE4 weapon index

[Urendi Maleldil]

Does anyone here use an index to rate the effectiveness of weapons in SE4?

For example:

Weapon Index = Damage / Reload / Tonnage * Range

Probably not the most effective since it doesn't take into account to-hit bonuses, weapon cost, damage decay, supply usage, or durability.

[Slick]

The most common I've seen is damage/(turn * kt).

In unmodded SE4, there are only a few weapons that have bonuses so that isn't normally used.

Throwing range in there would kinda work too but there is lots of variability in how damage changes with range so this somewhat muddies the waters.

There is no real "best" weapon. Favorites are:

Phased Poloron Beams - skips normal shields, relatively cheap to research, relatively good range.

Anti Proton Beam - longer range advantage reaches out and touches enemy earlier, usually.

Depleted Uranium Cannon - can't beat them for early firepower.

Shield Depleter - add to later designs, add them before other weapons so they fire first. Extends the life and effectiveness of other weapons.

Ionic Dispersers - leave your enemy immobile. No longer skips shields, but one of these on a ship will usually imobilize an enemy once shields are down.

A favorite research path for non-racials is to go with DUC in early game, PPB in mid game and SD/PPB or SD/APB in late game. At worst, you'd be average with this plan.



There are some good racial weapons and combos too:

Talisman with anything.

Crystal: Shield Depleters then Shard Cannon - removes shields quickly then skips armor. Deadly to organic enemies.

You get the idea; mix and match to get the best you can out of your racial weapons.

--------------------------------

However if you get fixated on any combo, your opponents can design ships that specifically attack your weaknesses and are resistant to your strengths. Best bet is to stay flexible and adapt to your enemies. Taking Religious is a sure way to get ganged up on by everyone before you can research the talisman, which many consider greatly unbalancing.

[Kana]

I'm sure Fyron, AT, or SJ have some program or something that lets you plug in numbers, and spits out more numbers or something for you to compare weapons and such. Useful if you are going to balance stuff for you uber-mod.

[Fyron]

There are not necessarily "best" weapons in stock, but there are a ton of useless ones. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

If its a never-ending barrage of stats you desire, check out SJ's Weapon Stats (http://home.spaceempires.net/downloads-details-417-SJ's_WeaponStats.html#dldetails) app. It needs data files to work with, but you can quickly throw together a skeleton set: just write out the max level version of each weapon and tweak them til satisfied.

[Urendi Maleldil]

I was hoping someone would have a formula that could boil down weapon stats to a single number. I'm trying to make all the weapons in SE4 Advanced useful, so I need to be able to compare them all on the same level.

The formula I mentioned before seems to be working, but it's not perfect. (And since I'm no math whiz, I'm not even sure its accurate.)

[Urendi Maleldil]

I don't know how to express this mathematically, but maybe a Weapon Index (WI) number of 1 could equal a weapon with these characteristics:

10kT space
10kT structure
10 Normal damage at range 1
1 max range
.1 decay
10% to-hit bonus
1 reload rate
10 supply usage
10 each cost min, rad, and org

Using this hypothetical weapon as a base and some mathematical formula to boil it down to one number, you could then use it to rate the effectiveness of all other direct fire weapons.

[Fyron]

damage / size / rate

is the main formula for comparisons. You can't really factor range into it mathematically, because the effects of different ranges are very complex. They vary based on ship speeds, your to hit bonuses, the enemy's defense bonuses, etc. The same applies to factors like raw to hit bonus of the weapon. A weapon with a 10% bonus to hit isn't really 10% more powerful; in cases where you have higher hit rates, 10% bonus is very small. In cases where you have low hit rates, 10% can make a difference. Supply usage is a nice balancing factor (have heavy supply usage, strong weapons for system defense, and lighter weapons for long range tactics), but it doesn't factor into damage ratios mathematically. Same with cost; its a factor in economics, certainly, but weapons usually aren't the vast majority of the cost of ships. You can't really factor such things into one single formula.

This is why SJ's weapon stats program uses a bunch of different formulas to generate a wide array of stats; different formulas are useful for comparing relative strengths different situations. There is no single formula to rule them all. Balancing weapons is a complex affair that requires much play testing. Math can get you a good baseline, but it won't do everything for you.

[Glyn]

I have an excel work sheet that has all the weapons, components, ship type data. It come in handy. I downloaded it from somewhere, but I can's seem to find where. It's name is SE4G.XLS


Unless you have a great to-hit advantage, for me it comes down to cost per point of damage. shield depleter and ripper beams.

( damage at range:0 / rof ) / total cost.


Also, Design your ships to be built in 3, 6, or 9 turns by your shipyards. That way you get the maximum build efficacy when you use emergency build.

[Slick]

That would be my spreadsheet. Glad to see someone found it useful. Distribute freely.

[Suicide Junkie]

Glyn;
As it has been mentioned, weapon cost is not a very big part of the total ship cost.
Engines and all of the one-off components like ECM/Sensors/bridge are a huge chunk of change, particularily on small ships in stock.

And also, if your weapons are cheap but large and weak, you'll need to sacrifice shields/armor/engines in order to get the same firepower.
Or build more ships, and pay a hefty fine in the build cost of your bridge/lifesupport/crewquarters/engines/sensors/etc
Be careful not to misplace the dollars while you pinch your pennies! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[marhawkman]

Unless you research better lifesupport/crewquarters/engines/sensors/etc. :p

I usually make ships with at least one solar panel and either use Organic missiles or a beam weapon. Electric discharge is nice. Especially powerful is the small version as a ground weapon.

EDIT: Sorry I was thinking of SE5.....

[Suicide Junkie]

That costs research, and still does not change the fact that having more ships costs you more resources for non-combat and one-per-ship components.

[Glyn]

SJ – The Ripper beam is smaller, cheaper and does more damage than the APB XII. It draw back is a range of 3, but by the time you have these weapons it best to fight at short range and you usually have the larger ships. Also, the Ripper beam is better balanced between the minerals and rads cost. For me, weapon load run about 30-35% of the total ship cost.

Now if your fighting organic or crystal the more expensive special weapons are needed.

[Fyron]

Ripper beams tend to lose their edge in large fleet combats, though. APB allows you to stack the fire from 8 rows of ships; ripper beams are limited to the first 3.

[PvK]

I have some formulae for balancing for my Proportions mod.

Range and hit bonus and special abilities are important, but subjective and depend on conditions. Contrary to Fyron's thinking, I think a +10% to-hit bonus is usually worth MORE than a 10% increase in damage, because it is only when the chance is otherwise over 90% that it becomes useless. At lower to-hit chances (which is very common, especially at range), the percent increase is actually greater than the bonus %, because it is relative to the chance to hit that would otherwise apply. E.g. If you'd otherwise have a 20% chance to hit, a +10% will on average give you 50% more damage than without it. If the chance would be 80%, +10 increases damage by an average of 10/80 = 12.5%.

[Suicide Junkie]

It is also a good idea to reduce the to-hit modifiers across the game.
Base accuracy, range penalty, racial modifiers, weapon bonuses, mount bonuses, component bonuses.

I try to keep accuracy in the range of 50% +/- 25%...
That way, while damage is crippling, you do not have to give up hope of hitting until all your weapons are destroyed.

[PvK]

Ya, I strongly agree on that. The way Space Empires adds together to-hit chances is an extremely powerful effect. Reducing the size of those additions helps a lot to maintain balance and reduce the situations where one side just can't possibly hit the other even when they are in range.

[Fyron]

I didn't mean that 10% to hit was worth less than 10% more damage, only that its not really comparable in a simple mathematic formula. "not really 10% more powerful" was just meaning that you can't simply multiply the damage ratio by 1.1 and expect sound results.

For reference, 10% bonus to hit varies from 1000% more damage (11% chance to hit instead of 1%) all the way to no effect at all (99% vs. 99% or -20 vs. -30).

[Suicide Junkie]

Personally, I wish it was sum[Attack Modifiers] / (sum[Attack Modifiers] + sum[Defense Modifiers]) instead.

That way it is still limited to 0-100%, and you get diminishing returns near the edges.

[PvK]

Fyron, oh I see, yes.

SJ, that's an interesting formula I don't think I've seen before. Personally, I think it should work like actual independent causes or combined factors in mathematical probability, e.g. product[factors].

[Suicide Junkie]

My formula there has the benefit of only having one multiplication/division, given Aaron's tendency for pure +/-.

If you multiply everything together, how would you avoid going over 100% when including a component such as combat sensors?
It seems to me you'd have to frame everything in terms of decreasing penalties (CS1=0.5, CS2=0.6, etc), and you would have to include a default value for ships with no sensors which is not 1 or 0.

[PvK]

Multiplication is the way probability actually works for independent factors in mathematics and the universe at large.

For example, I remember asking a kid in high school if he needed a ride home. His understanding of probability was like Space Empires', as he demonstrated by explaining, "No. My mom has a 50% chance of giving me a ride, and John's mom has a 50% chance of giving me a ride, so I have a total 100% chance of getting a ride home." It was actually hard to convince him that there was any chance neither would give him a ride home (perhaps though because he realized he was being silly and making a bad argument to get my goat, but that's the way SE4 works, which does get my goat and decrease my interest in it).

Assuming he was right about the 50% chance of each (a silliness in itself), the total chance was actually 75%, because the factors don't add to each other. One has a 50% chance of coming through, and the other only matters if the other fails, so its 50% only applies to the remaining 50%.

The math is:
Total Chance = 1.0 - (1.0 - Chance A) x (1.0 - Chance B)

That's for independent positive chances of causing something. Things like, if your computer has a 60% chance of finding out how to fix the Hyperdrive, and your Chief Engineer has a 30% chance of finding a solution on his own, you'd get:

Chance = 1.0 - (1.0 - 0.6) x (1.0 - 0.3)
Chance = 72%

This passes the following sanity checks:
* The total chance is less than 100%, since neither was certain.
* The chance is higher than either independent chance, since both provide a chance if the other fails.
* Note that if you think of 100 possible outcomes, 60 of which are covered by the computer, that leaves 40 not covered by the computer. 30% of _those_ will on average be covered by the engineer, so .3 x 40 = 12, and 60 + 12 = 72. Perfect.

Now, for negative (preventative) causes. Suppose your weapon targets accurately 70% of the time, but my shield deflects 90% of all hits (so only 10% get through). In that case, of 100 expected average tries, 70 will be potential hits. The shield applies in _those_ cases, because it's a negative effect dependent on a hit. Of 70 well-targeted shots, 90% get deflected, 10% get through, so 7 on average will be accurate AND get through.

You could do this with two random number checks, or you could just multiply:
(chance of good aim) x (chance of avoiding deflection)

chance of success = 0.7
chance of failure = 0.1

Just like for multiple things that lead to a success, there can be multiple things that can lead to a failure. Maybe you have an ace gunner who corrects computer targeting errors 80% of the time, but the enemy also has ECM that jams your view and prevents a hit 10% of the time. Assuming these are all accurate statements, the math for this is:

chance of a hit = causative chance x (1 - preventative chance)

where:
causative chance = 1.0 - (1.0 - computer targeting) x (1.0 - gunner correction)
and
preventative chance = 1.0 - (1.0 - shield deflection) x (1.0 - ECM jamming)

I get:
chance of a hit = 0.94 (chance the computer or gunner get an accurate shot) x (1 - 0.91) = 8.46% chance of a hit which gets past the deflector.

Note in this kind of system, the 90% deflector shield is obviously a very powerful effect that as you would expect, dominates the chances. But, also as you would expect, it will NEVER make it entirely impossible to get through - the chance will just always be under 10% as long as that deflector is having a 90% chance of blocking. As long as all the causative factors are greater than 0.0, and all the preventative factors are less than 1.0, there is always a chance of something happening or not. And, that chance makes sense, assuming your values are correct.

[Suicide Junkie]

That was a very long winded way of saying "not actually just multiplying everything together" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Given the new two-step system, you still have a problem with counters.
Given a 90% ECM, there is no way to counteract its effects with a superior sensor.

Consider troops and spotting. What is the benefit of camo gear? Quite a lot. If you add a thermal sensor, it should bring the chance to spot back up to better than before the camo gear came out. But it can't under your given system since that defense avoid% is guaranteed. (You'd have to add a complex web of interdependencies to each factor)

The way I'd do it is have a base attack value of 50, and a base defense value of 50 (say, settings.txt)
50/(50+50) = 50% to hit

Camo gear = 150pts defense.
50/(50+200) = 20% to hit

Thermal scanners = 250pts attack.
300/(300+200) = 60% to hit (vs camo, or 86% vs normal).

[PvK]

I like the elegance of your system, but it also abstracts. In your example, thermal imaging helps in all situations, when in fact it only helps in certain situations. To really model it, yes you do need to apply factors against each other. That's modifying the value used for one cause or prevention. By using probability math, you can get correct cause & effect, but yes, it's more work.

[Suicide Junkie]

Most importantly, there is only one multiplication/division for Aaron to worry about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif