|
|
|
| Re: Blunderbuss |
Wed, 11 June 2008 07:30   |
|
| Soobie |
 | Officer Cadet 3rd Year |
Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia | |
|
Making light BCs and using them as last movers or on SBs for defense against range 1 BBs??
Loading up a DN or 5 to go a sacrifial kill of a SB?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Blunderbuss |
Sat, 23 June 2012 11:03 |
|
| Eagle of Fire | 
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5 | |
|
That's already what 'max damage' does. If you set a beam ship with maximize damage tactic it will try to close to range 0 no matter what.
Don't confuse 'max damage' with 'max damage ratio'.
[Updated on: Sat, 23 June 2012 11:03]
STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Blunderbuss |
Wed, 25 July 2012 21:46 |
|
| neilhoward | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 20 July 2012 22:22Max damage orders make the ship try to maximize damage. Since beam weapons do more damage the closer they get, the AI always try to get to range 0. No matter what.
It was the whole point of my post.
Nope. You are wrong because you don't understand what you are talking about. It *always* does it, *except* when it doesn't. No matter what, except all the things you don't understand which make your statement completely false. That, and no it doesn't.
Making emphatic claims about something you do not understand, does not change the fact that you don't understand it. It does make you seem more foolish when you are wrong, which is more often than it needs to be since instead of actually taking 5 minutes to test your claims, you just say always, never, no matter what, while you repeat yourself over and over, failing to demonstrate anything but your own ignorance. Ignorance is one thing, but wilful ignorance is another (namely pitiable).
[Updated on: Wed, 25 July 2012 21:53] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Blunderbuss |
Fri, 27 July 2012 21:23 |
|
|
|
neilhoward wrote on Sat, 23 June 2012 12:27Could they help orders get a primarily range 2 beam ship to do more damage by closing range? Maybe extra helpful with Gatling type weapon.
Coming back to the original observation of adding blunderbuss helping range2 beam ships get in range... don't we need to factor in how much additional damage the token component will do? (2/4/6/... considering a BB design).
If the ship will die at the 1st enemy shot, then stars! will disregard the blunderbuss token which would not cause sufficient damage in it's own right. (Eg a BB with 2 blunderbuss, 6 sappers and 12 R2 beams). If you are talking about 10+ blunderbuss designs, it might make a difference.
If stars! still calculates that the additional damage done by a token component slot of 2 blunderbuss isn't enough to tip the edge so to speak, it won't take the ship closer with the default orders of max damage ratio.
If we are talking about max damage orders, I have not seen any battles in my actual games (with conventional designs) where ships have failed to move the maximum cells feasible.
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Blunderbuss |
Thu, 13 September 2012 22:03 |
|
 magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1369
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
neilhoward wrote on Fri, 27 July 2012 16:20I understand where you are coming from. I have been very surprised to see that battles don't always work they way I expected. I can show you turn files of Max Damage Ratio closing to range when Max Damage does not. Anyway, you can look back through bar and academy topics and find several mentions of unanticipated behaviour related to failing to close to range with beams and/or max damage. I see some really old usenet posts about this too.
I don't need or want other people to back me up. The best case scenario is that someone shows me that I am wrong, because there are a huge number of things that I am potentially mistaken about, but a much smaller finite number of instances where I might receive correction. If arguing were about who's understanding is correct at the end, instead of who was right from the begining, it would not be a zero sum game and we all could profit from it.
To be blunt, ranting about how people are stupid and wrong without actually showing your proof is an exercise in intellectual masturbation. No-one will be convinced by such a guarded argument, and so the only one that gains anything is your bloated ego.
I am perfectly fine with being proven wrong, but someone pulling this sort of ridiculous confusing drivel goes squarely in my "trolling" box.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
