MASTER OF ORION 3 BOOK OF ARMAMENTS 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 /=================================\ ================== Ý 1 Introduction and Legal Notice Ý ======================= \=================================/ 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 This FAQ is copyrighted by Alastair (Mario Laubacher), and may not be published without my consent.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 /====================\ ==================== Ý 2 Version History Ý ================================== \====================/ 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. /======================\ ==================== Ý 3 Design Guidelines Ý =============================== \======================/ --------------( 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. /===============\ ==================== Ý 4 Hull Table Ý ======================================= \===============/ --------------( 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. /// Type Cost Capacity --------------------------------- Lancer 50 50 Cutter 71 70 Corvette 102 100 Frigate 149 140 Destroyer 219 200 Light Cruiser 325 285 Cruiser 487 405 Battle Cruiser 729 575 Battleship 1132 815 Dreadnought 1756 1155 Superdreadnought 2736 1635 Titan 4323 2310 Behemoth 6853 3265 Leviathan 11122 4615 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. /==================\ ==================== Ý 5 Defense Tables Ý ==================================== \==================/ --------------( Armor Types )------------------------------------------------- ----------- Name Cost ArmorVal Deflect ---------------------------------------------- Zortrium 20 100 2 Duranium 60 200 6 Titanium 140 400 10 Neutronium 300 800 14 Adamantium 620 1600 18 --------------( Armor Plating )----------------------------------------------- ------------- 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. Example: Duranium UHA: cost 1080, Armor 3200, Defl 12 Titanium VHA: cost 1680, Armor 3200, Defl 17.5 --------------( Shields )----------------------------------------------------- ------- 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. /=======================\ ==================== Ý 6 Direct Fire Tables Ý =============================== \=======================/ --------------( 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 Fire Mult Near Far Dmg Max Acc Max Dlay Fire Dmg Dmg DisSt Acc DisSt Rng -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Laser 2.5 1 7 1 4500 0.7 4500 7167 Mass Driver 2.5 1 14 3 5732 0.5 4500 5733 Fusion Beam 2.5 1 31 2 4500 0.8 4500 6167 Quark Cannon 2.5 1 15 3 4500 0.7 4500 8017 Hard Beam 2.5 1 15 7 4500 0.7 4500 11333 Rail Gun 2.5 1 30 7 9065 0.5 4500 9067 Neutron Blaster 2.5 1 33 3 4500 0.7 4500 11628 Hellfire Cannon 2.5 1 67 10 4500 0.8 4500 8944 Graviton Beam 2.5 1 49 3 4500 0.7 4500 13433 Ion Pulse Cannon 2.5 1 33 4 4500 0.7 4500 15500 Particle Beam 2 1 49 10 4500 0.9 4500 13433 Phasors 2.5 1 48 5 4500 0.7 4500 17583 Gauss Cannon 2.5 1 97 9 14065 0.5 4500 14067 Lightning Field Gen 2.5 5 36 36 4500 0.9 4500 6364 Plasma Cannon 2.5 1 213 6 4500 0.8 4500 13111 Dark Energy Beam 2.5 1 107 20 4500 0.7 4500 17044 Disruptor Cannon 2.5 1 209 20 17399 0.5 4500 17400 Death Ray 2 1 157 50 4500 0.9 4500 18850 Disintegrater Beam 2.5 1 105 23 4500 0.7 4500 21750 Megabolt Cannon 2.5 1 314 23 4500 0.8 4500 14500 Tachyon Beam 2.5 1 231 27 4500 0.7 4500 20656 Mauler 4 1 679 1 4500 1 15887 15889 Dark Matter Proj 2.5 1 453 30 20732 0.5 4500 20733 Stellar Converter 8 1 1000 200 4500 1 27999 28000 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. Dmg/Spc = NearDmg / Spc Improv = ((Dmg*MultFire)/FireDlay) / (Spc*MaxAcc) Wpn Type Dmg/Spc Rank Improv Rank -------------------------------------------------------- Lightning Field Gen Plasma 3.6 8 18.75 1 Disruptor Cannon Mass 3.87 6 10.89 2 Gauss Cannon Mass 3.59 9 10.1 3 Dark Matter Proj Mass 4.77 4 8.94 4 Ion Pulse Cannon Beam 3.3 13 6.63 5 Megabolt Cannon Plasma 5.32 2 6.24 6 Disintegrator Beam Beam 4.2 5 5.63 7 Tachyon Beam Particle 3.79 7 5.07 8 Dark Energy Beam Particle 3.24 14 4.34 9 Rail Gun Mass 2.31 17 4.33 10 Hellfire Cannon Plasma 3.53 10 4.13 11 Phasers Beam 3.43 12 3.67 12 Plasma Cannon Plasma 4.84 3 3.03 13 Hard Beam Beam 2.14 19 2.87 14 Mauler Plasma 6.01 1 2.35 15 Graviton Beam Particle 2.72 15 1.94 16 Death Ray Particle 3.49 11 1.94 17 Mass Driver Mass 0.64 24 1.79 18 Quark Cannon Particle 1.25 22 1.67 19 Neutron Blaster Particle 2.2 18 1.57 20 Particle Beam Particle 2.72 16 1.51 21 Fusion Beam Plasma 2.07 20 1.29 22 Laser Beam 0.7 23 0.75 23 Stellar Converter Beam 2.02 21 0.25 24 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. /==================\ ============== Ý 7 Fighter Tables Ý ========================================== \==================/ --------------( 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. --------------( Fighter Types )----------------------------------------------- ------------- Type Fire Mult Near Far Dmg Dmg Max Acc Acc Dlay Fire Dmg Dmg DisSt DisEn Accry DisSt DisEn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fighter Laser 2.5 1 4 1 3k 4k 0.7 3k 4k Fighter Fusion Bm 2.5 1 15 2 3k 4k 0.8 3k 4k Fighter Neutron Bl 2.5 1 17 2 3k 4k 0.7 3k 4k Fighter Gravit Bm 2.5 1 25 2 3k 4k 0.7 3k 4k Fighter Phasors 2.5 1 24 4 3k 4k 0.7 3k 4k Fighter Plasma Cn 2.5 1 107 5 3k 4k 0.7 3k 4k Fighter Disrup Cn 2.5 1 105 30 3k 4k 0.5 3k 4k Fighter Mass Drv 2.5 1 7 5 3k 4k 0.5 3k 4k Fighter Gauss Cn 2.5 1 48 14 3k 4k 0.5 3k 4k Fighter Ion Pulse 2.5 1 16 4 3k 4k 0.7 3k 4k Fighter Particle 2.5 1 25 8 3k 4k 0.9 3k 4k Fighter Death Ray 2 1 78 38 3k 4k 0.9 3k 4k Type Cost Space Shld (Armr Size Improvements Pen Pier) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fighter Laser 4 6 1 1 6 AF Fighter Fusion Bm 15 14 1 1 6 E Fighter Neutron Bl 17 7 1 1 6 Fighter Gravit Bm 25 9 1 1 9 Fighter Phasors 24 7 1 1 6 DP Fighter Plasma Cn 107 41 1 1 15 DP Fighter Disrup Cn 105 32 1 1 12 Fighter Mass Drv 7 13 1 1 6 AP Fighter Gauss Cn 48 17 1 1 6 Fighter Ion Pulse 16 5 0.5 0 18 DP Fighter Particle 25 9 0.1 0.8 9 Fighter Death Ray 78 22 0.7 0.7 18 --------------( 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. /==================\ ============= Ý 8 Missile Tables Ý =========================================== \==================/ 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. FireDlay Dmg Cost Space Dmg / Spc ------------------------------------------------------------------ Point Defense Chassis 0.1 0.25 0.75 0.25 1 Rocket Chassis 0.5 1 1 1 1 Light Missile Chassis 1 2 2 1.25 1.6 Heavy Missile Chassis 1.33 4 3 1.75 2.29 Torpedo Chassis 1.66 5 5 2.5 2 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. Dmg Cost Space Dmg / Spc ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nuclear Warhead 56 14 6 9.33 Anionic Energy Warhead 82 15 6 13.67 Neutronium Warhead 121 17 7 17.29 Hercular Warhead 178 19 8 22.25 Merculite Warhead 262 21 8 32.75 High Energy X-Ray 386 23 9 42.89 Scatter Pack Warhead 568 25 10 56.8 Ionic Pulsar Warhead 836 28 11 76 Energy Pulsar Warhead 1231 31 12 102.58 Omega Warhead 1811 34 14 129.36 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! /// /===============\ ============== Ý 9 Electronics Ý ============================================= \===============/ 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. /// --------------( Detection )--------------------------------------------------- --------- Cost Space OffTgtRg ---------------------------------- ECCM I 30 15 0.87 ECCM II 90 20 0.81 ECCM III 150 35 0.67 ECCM IV 210 55 0.5 ECCM V 270 90 0.3 Focus Det 30 15 0.85 High-Caliber 90 20 0.79 X-Ray Trans 150 35 0.63 Adv Loc Sys 210 55 0.46 Ultimate DS 270 90 0.25 --------------( Cloaking )---------------------------------------------------- -------- 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. /=====================\ ============== Ý 10 Misc Tech Tables Ý ======================================= \=====================/ --------------( System Drives )----------------------------------------------- ------------- For Drives (both warp and system), cost and space are multipliers of speed and hull size. Name Cost Space MaxSpeed --------------------------------------------- Thrusters 25 0.25 1500 Improved Thrusters 27 0.235 1800 Hydrogen Fuel Cells 30 0.2325 2100 Impulse Engine 32 0.218 2400 Iridium Fuel Cells 35 0.2155 2700 Dotomite Crystals 37 0.201 3000 Uridium Fuel Cells 40 0.1995 3300 Reajax Fuel Cells 42 0.185 3600 Trilithium Crystals 50 0.183 3900 Transwarp Drive 52 0.169 4200 --------------( Warp Engines )------------------------------------------------ ------------ Name Cost Space MaxWarp --------------------------------------------- Retro Engine 100 0.25 85 Nuclear Engine 126 0.235 105 Sub-Light Drives 158 0.2325 133 Fusion Drives 200 0.218 168 Impulse Drives 252 0.2155 211 Ion Drives 318 0.201 266 Anti-Matter Drives 400 0.1995 336 Inter-Phased Drives 502 0.185 422 Hyper Drives 634 0.183 532 Warp Factor X 800 0.169 672 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. /=======================\ ============== Ý 11 Credits and Thanks Ý ===================================== \=======================/ 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. /========================\ ============= Ý 12 Hosting Information Ý ===================================== \========================/ 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/