X-Verse Fleet Fest I

X2-Eliah · Post by **X2-Eliah** » Mon, 24. May 10, 14:41

The current competition isn't even halfway through the first round, and you're thinking of the second already?

At this rate, the XFF2 won't come until Christmas anyway.

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Mon, 24. May 10, 15:29

The deadline wasn't over when people started discussing XFF II

Gavrushka · Post by **Gavrushka** » Mon, 24. May 10, 16:08

Cpt.Jericho wrote:The deadline wasn't over when people started discussing XFF II

Am I the only one losing sleep about XFF III, and XFF IV...

I'm just nervous my neck is on the block soon...

Spychotic · Post by **Spychotic** » Mon, 24. May 10, 16:40

TJ, how many ships (roughly) can your computer handle?

Spike

Triaxx2 · Post by **Triaxx2** » Mon, 24. May 10, 17:56

Ah, but see, I'm only competing in the first category, so I don't care about the second.

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Mon, 24. May 10, 18:00

Considering the videos wo far I'd say something between 150-200; maybe even more. Still I wouldn't set the maximum of ships much higher than 150.

Ran Kalus Iguanas against my fleet (yes, I do have too much time right now). Result: 359:32
Well, at least one spamfleet that can be beaten! Those TPs don't have enough weapons energy to keep fighting for longer than a couple of bursts. Shields also to weak. Even their speed did not save them from PSGs and PBGs. BTW Wraith missles make fine looking fireworks!

Technojerk36 · Post by **Technojerk36** » Mon, 24. May 10, 18:05

I can take about 200 ships on max graphics.

As for Mega-weekend, sorry about the delays; but hey, you guys got a bonus match.

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Mon, 24. May 10, 18:08

Hehe, did run my own bonus match

The F.A.R.T. isn't such a bad fleet afterall.

Deadbeat_Spinn · Post by **Deadbeat_Spinn** » Mon, 24. May 10, 18:12

Cpt.Jericho wrote:Hehe, did run my own bonus match The F.A.R.T. isn't such a bad fleet afterall.

Except the F.A.R.T. fleet is dead........crushed and destroyed.

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Mon, 24. May 10, 18:15

Not on my rig, dude

Anyway, beeing dead, crushed and destroyed doesn't mean it is a bad setup

Deadbeat_Spinn · Post by **Deadbeat_Spinn** » Mon, 24. May 10, 18:17

Cpt.Jericho wrote:Not on my rig, dude

That's cheating.

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Mon, 24. May 10, 18:30

Why? I had 2 Salvage insurances on board

Tenlar Scarflame · Post by **Tenlar Scarflame** » Mon, 24. May 10, 19:23

CJ has a point.

ChairborneRanger · Post by **ChairborneRanger** » Mon, 24. May 10, 20:44

Cpt.Jericho wrote:
ChairborneRanger wrote:I'll rant about the scanner thing tomorrow. It's 5AM eastern and I'm starting to fade out.
Rant as much as you want My next fleet won't be equipped with these anyway. Your theory is a fine example of thorough thought. But it does not holds against the things I actaully saw: According to you the SFs came in quick enough to trigger all my ships to attack. However: 2 Disco went astray anyway - and 42 + all other ships went directly rampage on those SFs; Ds drawing first blood actually. Never underestimate the firepower of 168 IREs
However: Pleasant dreams!

Okie dokie, here we go. The easiest way to settle this is with experimentation. Therefore I set up some battle using the XFF script so there would be no question. The simulation consisted of 100 fighters vs 100 fighters. I used solanos but realistically you can use any. Also I feel any number would really work down to about 5 or so.

The initial behavior of the AI when placed using the script is to fan out and seek enemies. You can demonstrate this by only placing one fleet with the script. They spread out going half speed in a nice circle for about 30 km and then meander about. Since the fleets are placed about 20 km apart, this is beyond the 10 km radius of a default scanner.

The following was observed:

100 solano VS 100 solano. Both with scanners: Each fleet immediately turned and engaged the other. Bloodbath ensued. (btw PRG beat PAC)

100 solano VS 100 solano. Xenon side with scanners only: The Xenon solanos all turned an engaged, however about 20 of the Argon solanos cruised away from their starting point at about 81 km/s and stayed out of the main engagement until they were mopped up by the Xenon fighters. This allowed the Xenon side to bring full strength to the furball which ended in their victory at around 40 to 0.

100 solano VS 100 solano. Argon side with scanners only: Mirrored the previous example. I did this just to make sure the Argon and Xenon AIs acted at least similar. Can't blame the race AI now.

100 solano VS 100 solano Neither side with scanners: Both sides started the match making nice big circles on the radar map, until the edges of the fighters got within about 10 km of each other. The fight was balanced, since both sides had about 20 fighters that were wandering into space. Interesting to note, about halfway through the battle, some of the fighters outside the fight managed to eventually find one another and there where some small personal dogfights going on.

What this boils down to is that putting scanners on your ships is probably a good thing. Heck, you could use duplex scanners at half the cost and probably make out ok. I don't think we should change the fleet deployment distance as the current placement is just about perfect for the fighters to meet first, and your capitals to move in orderly. I do agree that all this balance and theorycrafting should probably move to another thread. It's getting a little overboard

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Mon, 24. May 10, 21:09

I did similar testing using Discos with and without scanners at 30km distance. Results were in both cases more or less the same: a few (even with scanners) went sightseeing the rest engaged. Same with Katanas and Walhalas. So, I'm saving even the other half you want to save using duplex instead of triplex.

Spitzeuk · Post by **Spitzeuk** » Tue, 25. May 10, 13:46

ChairborneRanger wrote: (btw PRG beat PAC)

Just remember they cost 4 times as much and were attacking fast moving targets, you won't ever change my opinion that PACs are best on the Solano

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Tue, 25. May 10, 14:04

If I had to choose PRG vs. PAC on fighters I too would prefer the PAC. PRG vs. HEPT on the other hand might be worth to consider.

Tenlar Scarflame · Post by **Tenlar Scarflame** » Tue, 25. May 10, 16:09

Cpt.Jericho wrote:If I had to choose PRG vs. PAC on fighters I too would prefer the PAC. PRG vs. HEPT on the other hand might be worth to consider.

That would depend on the size of your target - the HEPT does still have the better damage output per gun, as well as the better damage output per credit spent. Large targets definitely feel more pain from HEPT's.

I went with PRG's on my fighters to give them the best hit chance available for their compatibilities, though I'm starting to wish I'd used PAC's and possibly fielded a couple more of them.

X2-Eliah · Post by **X2-Eliah** » Tue, 25. May 10, 16:17

Argh. I do wish I hadn't cut down on the scanners for the TMs. Let's see if Duplexes only will be sufficient.

Cpt.Jericho · Post by **Cpt.Jericho** » Tue, 25. May 10, 17:08

@X2-Eliah:
Never mind. Le Baron had no scanners at all and it did not seem that many were wandering off.

@Tenlar Scarflame:
That's why I said I might consider. If it's against M6 I'd really take HEPTs but against M3 is another pair of shoes. If I had to fight both M3 and M4 or smaller I might even consider using PACs and PRGs to be on the save side. This also depends on the ship class I choose. On M4 I'd probably use PACs only due to its lower energy consumption. On M3 I might even consider a healthy mix of HEPTs, PRGs and PACs. Those PBGs I picked are good against fast but sluggish targets but almost useless against fighters. I'd rather had used my original plan: PACs + HEPTs + missles.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

X-Verse Fleet Fest I