Weapon System Performance

[APhoenixSoaring]

What are the best weapon systems for good performance for defensive fleets?

I find, contrary to other people's experiences with missiles and fighters, that these weapons aren't as effective as I would expect, but potentially I'm designing my fleet composition poorly or not designing my ships to synergise with the weapons. They get plenty of manoeuvrability and speed but still get eaten by Blaster heavy attack fleets.

[jorgen_cab]

I think that missile based fleets are better with less engines and defences so they can truly overwhelm the enemy at distance, Engines and defences just take up too much space for missile fleets. It is better to flee or disengage if you can't overwhelm them. Have your ships escape as soon as they start taking armour damage or at the least 20% shields remaining.

Missile ships are best when they zip in and out of battle as they have the advantage in range, also make sure the fleet setting are at maximum firepower concentration, this is highly advantageous for long range weapons.

Kiting is not a very good strategy as it works badly in bigger battles, those that are more important. If you have ships that are designed to mainly harass the enemy then speed is good so you can stay out of range, but that is only good for skirmishes in order to make the opponent spend time chasing you.

You also might consider your fleets deployed in dispersed formations. The more time the opponent need to spend time to target your ships the more effect your ranged weapons will have. The same goes for smaller rather than larger fleets.

In my opinion you can make any weapon category in the game work for you with some adjustment to your overall tactics.

[Nightskies]

The best for a defense fleet is too generic a query. The intent- and circumstance- for the fleet is going to be the primary deciding factor. Is it supposed to slow down enemy forces, defeat attack fleets, ward against small invasions and raid fleets, or serve as reinforcements for larger battles? Will it be a defense force of 5 ships with an empire-wide engagement range? Will it be dedicated to defending your capital colony from Dhayut aggression? Or will it be the vanguard of your quiet border?

Then there's the rule of cool to be at least mentioned, even alongside performance. Do you like seeing a stream of missiles, envisioning a Macross-style battle with streaks of exhaust painting space? Does the duwom of beams tickle your power fantasy, or perhaps the dakka of solid slug PD? Regardless of what is strongest in any particular situation, all the main weapons *work*, provided they're not misused.

And then, often, what is "good enough" is the best choice. The offensive weapon already researched, or a racial weapon, or the one you got off a pirate's debris that is 4 tech tiers ahead.

I must mention also Ion weapons and Assault pods. The only time they're not pulling their weight is in a big battle fleet, where overwhelming firepower will nullify the advantage of disabling a ship, or when kiting. They're more effective at defense since you can quickly repair or retrofit a captured ship. Still, neither is good as a primary weapon. Assault Pod ships tag their target as 'do not destroy', and this can be disruptive to combat, so I recommend limiting assault pods to a few supplementary ships. With Ion, some have said that they find success by putting one on every ship, but I find that concentrating them on a few makes them better able to disable ships.

Speaking on Missiles, I strongly agree with Jorgen. Missiles work well when used well. In a straight-up brawl between fleets engaging each other (such as a defense fleet arriving to defend a station), Missiles don't perform as well as any other weapon. Numerous small fleets engaging the same threat will fare better- they're more able to spread the enemy out, which works to the Missile's advantage.

To help with that, Fighter-focused fleets truly dominate at this kind of engagement, but they lack endurance. They can't repeatedly engage sizable threats since they'll lose fighters faster than they can replace them. A carrier (not necessarily the capital Carrier) takes 1.5-2 years to replenish fighters- a shield-depleted ship takes months to regenerate, not counting ship damage. The AI likes to include fighters too, once they have the tech. Fighters are their own best counter, so if utilizing them as a major weapon, go big or don't rely on it. Ships that rely on fighters or missiles should be timid like Jorgen says- with a 50% or 20% shield retreat setting, depending on how good your armor is and whether you have Meridian.

Phoenix, I recall you once said that fast Blaster ships are the kings of the battlefield (in your way of speaking). That is certainly a strong build. Blaster fleets will consistently overpower the enemy on contact with middling to low losses. It is second only to Fighters in an isolated fleet-vs-fleet engagement (I have multiple saves of test setups to prove this if doubted - I canceled a so-called Fleet Olympics because fighter-based fleets *always* won). Unless it is manually controlled, though, it'll spread out and lose its potency, and struggle against superior numbers of enemies, especially if they fail to finish their targets repeatedly. It'll take more damage than longer-ranged fleets, and it's unable to focus fire as effectively as any other weapon- somewhat made up for by its sheer output. So, in a difficult galaxy, the Blaster becomes a less favorable primary weapon, as survivability becomes a higher priority. Even so, it remains a perfectly good choice, especially in situations where it excels.

Here's what I think are the best weapons for different types of defense fleets- assuming enemies are worthy of designing such fleets, meaning that the AI has a numerical and technological advantage. Otherwise, you don't need to optimize, or specialize, at all, and can win the game with just Epsilon Torpedoes without difficulty.

Note that, because of the variance between races, I'm omitting several details. Some races do not work with these, and others are so heavily capable of some that it should be obvious what to do. For example, the Boskara should be fielding All-Purpose fleets, all day, every day, because of their amazing Torpedoes and Blasters. They'll barely look at Fighters, only because they'll eventually need some to defend against the Rebel Alliance.

All-Purpose Defense Fleet

Primary Weapon: Torpedoes
Secondary Weapon: Blasters
Composition: 10-20 Frigates/Destroyers, 2-4 support Cruisers
Support: Ion, Assault Pods, Fighters, Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
If 'a defense fleet' is as specific as you're designing for, this is it. It always performs, making it the best generic weapon pair. If the ships are tough as can be, they're good ships. The Epsilon torpedo is solid enough to be an empire's staple weapon until the final tier weapons are developed. The Shockwave, while not as impressive, still does its job while being dirt cheap and the Quantum Shard is everything it should be. It works for any kind of fleet, and defense fleets are no exception. Torpedo primary fleets can skirmish in a pinch, they're strong brawlers with supplementary Blasters, and they can focus high high-priority threats easily. Best of all, they work well with automation- leave them with Aggressive/Neutral stance.

Major Colony dedicated Defense Fleet

Primary: Large Phaser Lances/Graviton Beams
Secondary: None
Composition: 8-10 Battleships, 1 support Cruiser
Support: Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, Ion Beams
Engagement Range: Same Location
Battleships are good for three things. Satisfying a megalomaniac's ego, soaking damage, and extending the range and punch of their weapons. Nothing benefits more from this than Phasers and Graviton. The alpha strike of 8 Battleships with Phaser Lances will turn 2 Destroyers into derelict ships- and that's if half the shots miss, and assuming it's a single broadside from each ship at maximum range (3.5k), every 8 seconds. With a cautious stance, long-range AI enemies won't stand a chance, while others will lose roughly half their fleet before closing. This doesn't compare to the firepower of an equivalent cost of Blaster frigates, but the Battleships have superb resilience with numerous shields and a 50% regen boost. This defense fleet will weather repeated waves on its own- and that's not counting the support it should have in the form of fighters from stations and planetary defense guns. It must be restricted to the colony, however. While individually strong ships, their range will be a moot advantage if unable to severely damage targets quickly. If they battle so long that they split up, they'll remain as bulwarks for the reinforcements you should be sending. They are vulnerable to fighters without support.

Raid Hunter Defense Fleet

Primary: S/M Impact Blasters
Secondary: Ion
Composition: 6 Frigates
Support: -
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
These boys have one job. Destroy small enemy forces. Because such forces are weary of stronger opponents, it has to be small enough to not chase away their targets on sight. Best situated at middling value colonies near (not at) borders, unlikely to be targeted. Relying on speed and sheer firepower, they can easily take on any individual target and are perfect for arriving at a system-wide embroiled siege (offensively, too). Optimized for destroying raids and undersized invasion fleets, they will crumble in the face of attack fleets and inevitably will do so under automation. They will frequently take losses because of this, but will usually dish out more than they take. Should be cheap enough to be easily replaced- minimize the use of rare resources, namely Hexodorium, Aculon, and Osalia/Kaasian- hence why not use Titan or L Impact Blasters.

Carrier Defense Fleet

Primary: Fighters
Secondary: Missiles, Blasters, extra PD
Composition: 14 Destroyers (less if Ackdarian or Teekan), 1 support Carrier
Support: Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, excessive PD
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
This fleet size of dedicated carriers will bring more fighters than most (maybe all) AI fleets and can be relatively cheap. The home base for these should be deep in the empire, and target an attack fleet. With an Avoid stance, these carriers are meant to either cripple the target's fighter force or destroy the fleet outright while taking as little damage as possible. The larger attack force won't flee from it until it takes heavy losses. It is less ideal in huge battles with multiple fleets over a colony, but if present at the onset of a major battle, it can provide devastating firepower.

Brute Defense Fleet

Primary: Blasters
Secondary: None
Composition: 8 Cruisers, 8 supplementary Frigates, 3 supplementary Cruisers, 1 support Destroyer or Cruiser, Fuel Ship
Support: Ion, Fighters, Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, Long-Range Scanner if possible, Inhibitor
Engagement Range: Sector
It's practically an Attack Fleet for defense. Cruisers don't put out nearly as much offensive potential as Frigates but have a lot better resilience. The frigates should be slower and provide as much low-cost firepower as possible, while the supplementary Cruisers should provide fighters and Ion. This is meant to be a brick you throw at a problem. While tough, it will break against a worthy adversary, but it will shatter whatever it hits. Too expensive for saturating an empire- include one per major colony.

Gatekeeper Defense Fleet

Primary: Missiles
Secondary: Blasters
Composition: 10 Frigates or 6 Destroyers, 1 support Destroyer or Cruiser
Support: Ion, Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, Inhibitor, Fighters, maybe a Long Range Scanner
Engagement Range: Sector
This small fleet is meant not to hold a line on its own, but to hold off a major threat for reinforcements (including more 'Gatekeeper' fleets) and warding smaller threats, keeping your assets defended while minimizing fleet losses as much as possible under automation. Saturate your territory with these fleets and specifically target hostile attack fleets with other, specialized fleets, like a Carrier defense fleet. Blasters are a solid inclusion, as fleets will inevitably be engaged at close range unless you control them manually. This is an ideal fleet for huge battles. It's similar in performance to the generic fleet but does much better at long-range.

Raid Fleet

Primary: Blasters
Secondary: Assault Pods
Composition: 3 Frigates or 2 Destroyers or 1 Cruiser
Support: None (does not need Ion)
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
It is only good for targeting stragglers, disabled ships, and joining ongoing battles. If Assault Pods could be a primary weapon, this little force would only use them. It is ideal when your other fleets do not include Assault Pods while facing technologically superior foes, and should have timid retreat settings.

Phoenix, if you haven't already, try out an Ackdarian game, and find what works for them. At first, I disliked their relatively squishy ships, but warmed up to them after trying different things out.

[APhoenixSoaring]

That was a LOT of information, and more than I hoped for. Thank you Nightskies. I think you identified the main questions from my vague OP.

There's a couple of specifics to follow up.

Why Ackdarians specifically? I'll give them a go next beta update.

What is the niche of missiles, rule of cool aside?
What makes them worth researching in terms of opportunity cost? (Why would you research them over more heavily investing in another research branch?)
I have a vague understanding of their strengths/weaknesses, and suspect I use them incorrectly. I use them because of rule of cool, which isn't a good reason to be using them.

I agree about you can use anything if you have sufficient advantage. I'm thinking of situations where the strategy does matter.

In terms of common terminology, I designed the following fleets and attempted to use them similarly to your guide's archetypes:
Hammer: Fighters and blasters.
Shield: Long range weapons (I chose missiles).
Both fleets were defending the same colony. Can't remember fleet sizes. Somewhere in the ballpark of 11 and 15. Attacked by a typical AI attack fleet of 30 ships.
For the most part, I leave the automation to fight the AI rather than micromanage.
(In the next, current, 1.2.0.0 game, I'm experimenting with changing ship engagement settings to achieve the same levels of fleet cohesion that the AI manages easily).

The war started with my navy being mortified: losing 50 ships for zero kills over a number of battles. Later in the war I would start to trade more favourably, ending the war with positive war score through bases being captured or destroyed, but still -60 military ships in deficit (kills - losses).
Are Shield fleets better off with beams or torpedoes or gravitons, rather than missiles as stand-off weapons?

So the specific situation is defending a valuable colony from a large attack fleet. Equally, landing kills on invasion fleets.

On reflection, I suspect that the problem was less to do with a tradeoff between Damage vs Mobility, and more to do with Fleet cohesion leading to defeat in detail. Plus I recall the AI weapon technology on its ships was superior to mine through concentrated (less diffuse) research in weapons. And the torpedo/blaster combination is potent.

I'm reluctant to start stripping mobility from ships. Because of fixed slots, there aren't many slots for engines to begin with, so I tend to find another trade-off to make. In combat, I frequently observe that positioning and manoeuvring time is critical and also have a strong preference for manoeuvrability.

King of the battlefield. I can't remember the exact context of that discussion, sorry. I recall a conversation where DWU meta was discussed in contrast with the claim DW2 had no meta build. Was it in that context?

[jorgen_cab]

Don't think that you MUST put engines in every slot just because the slot it there. Why would you not use the same logic to weapon slots for example then?!?

In my experience Missile armed fleets are better of using more slots for weapons than engines and defences as they will start dealing damage much sooner than other fleets. Instead rely escaping when the opponent get into brawler range.

Strong defences and engines is more and more important the lower the range of your weapon systems.

[Nightskies]

Regarding the example with the two fleets, it seems that neither fleet was prepared to deal with an attack fleet. They didn't operate optimally for what both fleets do best either, probably. You'd have to manually order the hammer fleet to wait behind the shield fleet until contact. When relying on automation, you have to somehow overpower your target with a sufficient concentration of force, so that setup wouldn't work well.

Fully under automation, the timid retreat (not fleet setting, the 50% or 20% shield ship setting) works well with missile fleets. Missile fleets excel at enduring attacks, and they're best when focused on- though supplementary blasters are a good idea. They work better with a more homogeneous force. In the example you gave, it would have been better if they were all missile ships with a support ship or two, maybe each armed with a couple of S blasters.

Don't think of them as kiting forces unless you specifically design them to be, and keep an eye on them. Continuously tell them to attack the closest enemy ship, anticipate the incoming damage, and switch targets before wasting a volley. Once the combatants close or the battle spreads out, then let automation take over. Automation doesn't work very well with kiting forces because they'll target larger, slower ships. This incidentally tells them to move closer to the enemy's faster forces. It does a lot better with it in a large, spread-out battle, where Missiles shine.

I should have said the Teekans, not the Ackdarians (I was thinking about what changed my mindset on ship design more than anything else, but in this case, should have been the Teekans), they almost have to rely on fighters, torpedoes, or missiles. They are slow and have terrible frontal weapon arcs but automated Teekan fleet performs comparatively well, using those three weapon systems primarily. Even these ships should have a Blaster or two.

Having said all that, the Torpedo is the best general-purpose weapon. Automation works best with exactly that. So, relying on automation, missiles would be tougher to use well, but they can be better.

Recap to use Missiles effectively with automation:

• Be homogenous with missile ships/fleets, not counting special purpose fleets (invasion, raid)
  
• Compliment with a blaster or two (rear slots work well)
  
• Focus on defense systems after filling out weapons fully, including countermeasures and a PD
  
• Use a ship retreat setting of 20% shields, and prioritize good shields (Talassos>Deucalios here)
  
• Use Cautious/Cautious stance
  
• Use some Fighters
  
• DON'T use missiles on your first warships! Pirates are strong against early missiles, but they're fine on civilian ships and stations because the range is more important for them.

Alternatively, they're great with a focus on Fighters as well, be it in the use of the Cautious or Avoid stance.

Regarding the king of the battlefield thing, that's in my own words~ I don't remember how you put it~ I'll see if I can find it~
*No, it appears my recollection is off. Unless you are StormingKiwi at the Matrix forums.

[Ax4711]

I find dedicated fleet leader ships are absolutely worth it. They carry a long range sensor and the fleet targeting and countermeasures systems, topped up with a fighter hangar. The admirals have a safe station here as as well.

It's just a bit fiddly with the upgrades, it's necessary to set the upgrade paths in the ship designer and obsolete the design once all planned ships are built.

[jorgen_cab]

Originally posted by Ax4711:

I find dedicated fleet leader ships are absolutely worth it. They carry a long range sensor and the fleet targeting and countermeasures systems, topped up with a fighter hangar. The admirals have a safe station here as as well.

It's just a bit fiddly with the upgrades, it's necessary to set the upgrade paths in the ship designer and obsolete the design once all planned ships are built.

I just dedicate one hull type for that role which make upgrades quite easy. You rarely need that many different ship types in your fleets anyway than the amount of hulls we have available. At least I find them to be enough.

[PlayboyMoney]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

The best for a defense fleet is too generic a query. The intent- and circumstance- for the fleet is going to be the primary deciding factor. Is it supposed to slow down enemy forces, defeat attack fleets, ward against small invasions and raid fleets, or serve as reinforcements for larger battles? Will it be a defense force of 5 ships with an empire-wide engagement range? Will it be dedicated to defending your capital colony from Dhayut aggression? Or will it be the vanguard of your quiet border?

Then there's the rule of cool to be at least mentioned, even alongside performance. Do you like seeing a stream of missiles, envisioning a Macross-style battle with streaks of exhaust painting space? Does the duwom of beams tickle your power fantasy, or perhaps the dakka of solid slug PD? Regardless of what is strongest in any particular situation, all the main weapons *work*, provided they're not misused.

And then, often, what is "good enough" is the best choice. The offensive weapon already researched, or a racial weapon, or the one you got off a pirate's debris that is 4 tech tiers ahead.

I must mention also Ion weapons and Assault pods. The only time they're not pulling their weight is in a big battle fleet, where overwhelming firepower will nullify the advantage of disabling a ship, or when kiting. They're more effective at defense since you can quickly repair or retrofit a captured ship. Still, neither is good as a primary weapon. Assault Pod ships tag their target as 'do not destroy', and this can be disruptive to combat, so I recommend limiting assault pods to a few supplementary ships. With Ion, some have said that they find success by putting one on every ship, but I find that concentrating them on a few makes them better able to disable ships.

Speaking on Missiles, I strongly agree with Jorgen. Missiles work well when used well. In a straight-up brawl between fleets engaging each other (such as a defense fleet arriving to defend a station), Missiles don't perform as well as any other weapon. Numerous small fleets engaging the same threat will fare better- they're more able to spread the enemy out, which works to the Missile's advantage.

To help with that, Fighter-focused fleets truly dominate at this kind of engagement, but they lack endurance. They can't repeatedly engage sizable threats since they'll lose fighters faster than they can replace them. A carrier (not necessarily the capital Carrier) takes 1.5-2 years to replenish fighters- a shield-depleted ship takes months to regenerate, not counting ship damage. The AI likes to include fighters too, once they have the tech. Fighters are their own best counter, so if utilizing them as a major weapon, go big or don't rely on it. Ships that rely on fighters or missiles should be timid like Jorgen says- with a 50% or 20% shield retreat setting, depending on how good your armor is and whether you have Meridian.

Phoenix, I recall you once said that fast Blaster ships are the kings of the battlefield (in your way of speaking). That is certainly a strong build. Blaster fleets will consistently overpower the enemy on contact with middling to low losses. It is second only to Fighters in an isolated fleet-vs-fleet engagement (I have multiple saves of test setups to prove this if doubted - I canceled a so-called Fleet Olympics because fighter-based fleets *always* won). Unless it is manually controlled, though, it'll spread out and lose its potency, and struggle against superior numbers of enemies, especially if they fail to finish their targets repeatedly. It'll take more damage than longer-ranged fleets, and it's unable to focus fire as effectively as any other weapon- somewhat made up for by its sheer output. So, in a difficult galaxy, the Blaster becomes a less favorable primary weapon, as survivability becomes a higher priority. Even so, it remains a perfectly good choice, especially in situations where it excels.

Here's what I think are the best weapons for different types of defense fleets- assuming enemies are worthy of designing such fleets, meaning that the AI has a numerical and technological advantage. Otherwise, you don't need to optimize, or specialize, at all, and can win the game with just Epsilon Torpedoes without difficulty.

Note that, because of the variance between races, I'm omitting several details. Some races do not work with these, and others are so heavily capable of some that it should be obvious what to do. For example, the Boskara should be fielding All-Purpose fleets, all day, every day, because of their amazing Torpedoes and Blasters. They'll barely look at Fighters, only because they'll eventually need some to defend against the Rebel Alliance.

All-Purpose Defense Fleet

Primary Weapon: Torpedoes
Secondary Weapon: Blasters
Composition: 10-20 Frigates/Destroyers, 2-4 support Cruisers
Support: Ion, Assault Pods, Fighters, Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
If 'a defense fleet' is as specific as you're designing for, this is it. It always performs, making it the best generic weapon pair. If the ships are tough as can be, they're good ships. The Epsilon torpedo is solid enough to be an empire's staple weapon until the final tier weapons are developed. The Shockwave, while not as impressive, still does its job while being dirt cheap and the Quantum Shard is everything it should be. It works for any kind of fleet, and defense fleets are no exception. Torpedo primary fleets can skirmish in a pinch, they're strong brawlers with supplementary Blasters, and they can focus high high-priority threats easily. Best of all, they work well with automation- leave them with Aggressive/Neutral stance.

Major Colony dedicated Defense Fleet

Primary: Large Phaser Lances/Graviton Beams
Secondary: None
Composition: 8-10 Battleships, 1 support Cruiser
Support: Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, Ion Beams
Engagement Range: Same Location
Battleships are good for three things. Satisfying a megalomaniac's ego, soaking damage, and extending the range and punch of their weapons. Nothing benefits more from this than Phasers and Graviton. The alpha strike of 8 Battleships with Phaser Lances will turn 2 Destroyers into derelict ships- and that's if half the shots miss, and assuming it's a single broadside from each ship at maximum range (3.5k), every 8 seconds. With a cautious stance, long-range AI enemies won't stand a chance, while others will lose roughly half their fleet before closing. This doesn't compare to the firepower of an equivalent cost of Blaster frigates, but the Battleships have superb resilience with numerous shields and a 50% regen boost. This defense fleet will weather repeated waves on its own- and that's not counting the support it should have in the form of fighters from stations and planetary defense guns. It must be restricted to the colony, however. While individually strong ships, their range will be a moot advantage if unable to severely damage targets quickly. If they battle so long that they split up, they'll remain as bulwarks for the reinforcements you should be sending. They are vulnerable to fighters without support.

Raid Hunter Defense Fleet

Primary: S/M Impact Blasters
Secondary: Ion
Composition: 6 Frigates
Support: -
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
These boys have one job. Destroy small enemy forces. Because such forces are weary of stronger opponents, it has to be small enough to not chase away their targets on sight. Best situated at middling value colonies near (not at) borders, unlikely to be targeted. Relying on speed and sheer firepower, they can easily take on any individual target and are perfect for arriving at a system-wide embroiled siege (offensively, too). Optimized for destroying raids and undersized invasion fleets, they will crumble in the face of attack fleets and inevitably will do so under automation. They will frequently take losses because of this, but will usually dish out more than they take. Should be cheap enough to be easily replaced- minimize the use of rare resources, namely Hexodorium, Aculon, and Osalia/Kaasian- hence why not use Titan or L Impact Blasters.

Carrier Defense Fleet

Primary: Fighters
Secondary: Missiles, Blasters, extra PD
Composition: 14 Destroyers (less if Ackdarian or Teekan), 1 support Carrier
Support: Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, excessive PD
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
This fleet size of dedicated carriers will bring more fighters than most (maybe all) AI fleets and can be relatively cheap. The home base for these should be deep in the empire, and target an attack fleet. With an Avoid stance, these carriers are meant to either cripple the target's fighter force or destroy the fleet outright while taking as little damage as possible. The larger attack force won't flee from it until it takes heavy losses. It is less ideal in huge battles with multiple fleets over a colony, but if present at the onset of a major battle, it can provide devastating firepower.

Brute Defense Fleet

Primary: Blasters
Secondary: None
Composition: 8 Cruisers, 8 supplementary Frigates, 3 supplementary Cruisers, 1 support Destroyer or Cruiser, Fuel Ship
Support: Ion, Fighters, Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, Long-Range Scanner if possible, Inhibitor
Engagement Range: Sector
It's practically an Attack Fleet for defense. Cruisers don't put out nearly as much offensive potential as Frigates but have a lot better resilience. The frigates should be slower and provide as much low-cost firepower as possible, while the supplementary Cruisers should provide fighters and Ion. This is meant to be a brick you throw at a problem. While tough, it will break against a worthy adversary, but it will shatter whatever it hits. Too expensive for saturating an empire- include one per major colony.

Gatekeeper Defense Fleet

Primary: Missiles
Secondary: Blasters
Composition: 10 Frigates or 6 Destroyers, 1 support Destroyer or Cruiser
Support: Ion, Fleet Targeting/Countermeasures, Inhibitor, Fighters, maybe a Long Range Scanner
Engagement Range: Sector
This small fleet is meant not to hold a line on its own, but to hold off a major threat for reinforcements (including more 'Gatekeeper' fleets) and warding smaller threats, keeping your assets defended while minimizing fleet losses as much as possible under automation. Saturate your territory with these fleets and specifically target hostile attack fleets with other, specialized fleets, like a Carrier defense fleet. Blasters are a solid inclusion, as fleets will inevitably be engaged at close range unless you control them manually. This is an ideal fleet for huge battles. It's similar in performance to the generic fleet but does much better at long-range.

Raid Fleet

Primary: Blasters
Secondary: Assault Pods
Composition: 3 Frigates or 2 Destroyers or 1 Cruiser
Support: None (does not need Ion)
Engagement Range: 50% Fuel
It is only good for targeting stragglers, disabled ships, and joining ongoing battles. If Assault Pods could be a primary weapon, this little force would only use them. It is ideal when your other fleets do not include Assault Pods while facing technologically superior foes, and should have timid retreat settings.

Phoenix, if you haven't already, try out an Ackdarian game, and find what works for them. At first, I disliked their relatively squishy ships, but warmed up to them after trying different things out.

Thank you so much, I've been trying to get back into the game and this is helpful beyond belief. Do you think you could articulate some similar tips for Offensive fleets?

[Nightskies]

Sure- I'll focus on those that work for automated fleets.

I want to emphasize that the above suggestions for fleets are what I found to be best at the job for that fleet. As mentioned, the best choice in real play is often what is good enough. Because of that, I recommend researching at least two weapon lines and PD, one more emphasized as your primary weapon of choice. This choice will determine what you should use for offensive fleets.

I intend to go through all the pairs, but I'll start with one of the strongest choices.

Blasters and Missiles/Torpedoes (depending on race)

Good engines are a must, 80 speed is a decent minimum. Deucalios shields for making these ships refuse to retreat, making them en mass, expendable basic Frigates forgoing Large Blasters (some Fleet Frigates will work). For the races whose basic frigate does not have the speed capability or decent frontal firepower, use Kaldos jump drives with Talassos shields on Fast Destroyers or Light Cruisers (light cruisers can afford to be slower due to their durability).

Please don't make Blaster Battleships unless your ego demands it. Your support ships should be as small and survivable as possible, outright set to Avoid stance with seeking weapons- they won't be priority targets. If you need some damage soak or Fighter support, use Carriers- the capital Carrier, not little carriers. Set 3-5 Carriers, and DO NOT set them to Cautious with seeking weapons! They will separate from your knife-range fleet and get themselves destroyed. Fill them to the brim with shields and fighter bays, 3 armor, 2-3 Repair Bots and Quantum Capacitors, Neutral/Neutral stance, most of their weapon slots filled with S/M Blasters with a little extra PD, and set 50% shield retreat. Think of them as super-durable Cruisers with a big Fighter belly. They will draw lots of attention away from the main damage dealers in the fleet and typically survive. Though they're slower than the rest of the fleet, they'll head in the right direction and easily soak long-range fire before joining the fray. These fighters are mostly to defend against enemy fighters, but it's worth mentioning that Blaster bombers are very strong.

Your primary attack fleets will be few and large- you want swift, decisive victories by trying to eliminate hostile fleets one at a time. With few attack fleets, the automation will similarly assign few Attack Points, meaning that when the automated attack fleets go offensive, it'll often be joined by one or two of the other big attack fleets. This is what you want with Blaster fleets.

I recommend extra fuel ships for these big fleets.

The other attack fleets will remain more-or-less defensive and engage Threats. Set the ship Engagement Range to Same Location. You don't want the fleet to split up throughout the system.

Numerous tiny, swift raid fleets with stealth works very well for an empire like this. Make them so numerous that only an overwhelmingly larger empire could hope to respond with an entire defense fleet to each. They will handle the stations so your attack fleets don't have to waste fuel on them.

You'll need to make sure your Invasion fleets are well-prepared and strong. Lots of infantry in your invasions will allow you to leave space undefended to quickly move on to the next target. Endurance is the Blaster fleet's weak point, so sticking around for repeated engagements against an overwhelming enemy isn't a good idea.

A couple of disposable 'defense' fleets manually assigned to hunt down spotted invasion fleets is a good idea, as if they were Hive carriers. If it's too strong, the invasion fleet will flee on sight, so the big attack fleets aren't the best at this.

Missiles/Torpedoes will primarily be on your support ships and stations, as well as rear weapon slots on your offensive ships. They're also good for All-Purpose defense fleets, which don't need speed and can focus on resilience- the thing Blaster fleets aren't good at. Don't build such a defense fleet until you have at least two large attack fleets and need additional coverage.

[℧ | Tadiktor]

wow, i play completly different. i use only torpedos and pds. when i reach cruisers i add fighter bays.
i have few fleets with many ships. depending on the race i play with. isectiods for example have swarms containing over 100 ships sometimes. high tech race like quameno still have about 20 ships in the smallest fleets.
i also specialize my fleets. my invasion fleets is a trooptransporter only fleet. i prepare the planet with one of my main fleets and protect my trooptransporter.

[APhoenixSoaring]

Originally posted by jorgen_cab:

Don't think that you MUST put engines in every slot just because the slot it there. Why would you not use the same logic to weapon slots for example then?!?

In my experience Missile armed fleets are better of using more slots for weapons than engines and defences as they will start dealing damage much sooner than other fleets. Instead rely escaping when the opponent get into brawler range.

Strong defences and engines is more and more important the lower the range of your weapon systems.

It's a design process, there are trade-offs to make. The ship designer, as rigid as it is, offers flexibility in what those trade-offs are. What faction and hulls do you have in mind?

The justification is not "Just because the slot is there". Here is the relevant quote for you to consider again.

Originally posted by APhoenixSoaring:

I'm reluctant to start stripping mobility from ships. Because of fixed slots, there aren't many slots for engines to begin with, so I tend to find another trade-off to make.

In my experience, I hardly ever think "That ship would have survived if it had better weaponry" or "That ship would have survived if it had better defences". Most of the time, I'm looking at cohesive enemy fleets defeating the ships in my fleet in detail because they are out of position.

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Regarding the example with the two fleets, it seems that neither fleet was prepared to deal with an attack fleet. They didn't operate optimally for what both fleets do best either, probably. You'd have to manually order the hammer fleet to wait behind the shield fleet until contact. When relying on automation, you have to somehow overpower your target with a sufficient concentration of force, so that setup wouldn't work well.

Fully under automation, the timid retreat (not fleet setting, the 50% or 20% shield ship setting) works well with missile fleets. Missile fleets excel at enduring attacks, and they're best when focused on- though supplementary blasters are a good idea. They work better with a more homogeneous force. In the example you gave, it would have been better if they were all missile ships with a support ship or two, maybe each armed with a couple of S blasters.

Don't think of them as kiting forces unless you specifically design them to be, and keep an eye on them. Continuously tell them to attack the closest enemy ship, anticipate the incoming damage, and switch targets before wasting a volley. Once the combatants close or the battle spreads out, then let automation take over. Automation doesn't work very well with kiting forces because they'll target larger, slower ships. This incidentally tells them to move closer to the enemy's faster forces. It does a lot better with it in a large, spread-out battle, where Missiles shine.

Oh right, I see. So it's more a case of insufficient micro, where the automation requires manual intervention to handle missile fleets effectively, along with fleets being too small to be effective.

I've tended to put my ships on skittish retreating (50% or 20% shields), since the beginning, for exactly the reason that once ships start getting non-defence components damaged, it's either too late to retreat in 20 seconds, or they run the risk of the damaged components being the hyper-drive. If there was a policy to set default retreat setting in new designs, I would change it, because occasionally I forget to set it properly and then it is a pain to correct the retreat settings per ship.

Having said all that, the Torpedo is the best general-purpose weapon. Automation works best with exactly that. So, relying on automation, missiles would be tougher to use well, but they can be better.

Recap to use Missiles effectively with automation:

• Be homogenous with missile ships/fleets, not counting special purpose fleets (invasion, raid)
  
• Compliment with a blaster or two (rear slots work well)
  
• Focus on defense systems after filling out weapons fully, including countermeasures and a PD
  
• Use a ship retreat setting of 20% shields, and prioritize good shields (Talassos>Deucalios here)
  
• Use Cautious/Cautious stance
  
• Use some Fighters
  
• DON'T use missiles on your first warships! Pirates are strong against early missiles, but they're fine on civilian ships and stations because the range is more important for them.

Alternatively, they're great with a focus on Fighters as well, be it in the use of the Cautious or Avoid stance.

Great summary, thanks.

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Sure- I'll focus on those that work for automated fleets.

I want to emphasize that the above suggestions for fleets are what I found to be best at the job for that fleet. As mentioned, the best choice in real play is often what is good enough. Because of that, I recommend researching at least two weapon lines and PD, one more emphasized as your primary weapon of choice. This choice will determine what you should use for offensive fleets.

I intend to go through all the pairs, but I'll start with one of the strongest choices.

Blasters and Missiles/Torpedoes (depending on race)

Good engines are a must, 80 speed is a decent minimum. Deucalios shields for making these ships refuse to retreat, making them en mass, expendable basic Frigates forgoing Large Blasters (some Fleet Frigates will work). For the races whose basic frigate does not have the speed capability or decent frontal firepower, use Kaldos jump drives with Talassos shields on Fast Destroyers or Light Cruisers (light cruisers can afford to be slower due to their durability).

Please don't make Blaster Battleships unless your ego demands it. Your support ships should be as small and survivable as possible, outright set to Avoid stance with seeking weapons- they won't be priority targets. If you need some damage soak or Fighter support, use Carriers- the capital Carrier, not little carriers. Set 3-5 Carriers, and DO NOT set them to Cautious with seeking weapons! They will separate from your knife-range fleet and get themselves destroyed. Fill them to the brim with shields and fighter bays, 3 armor, 2-3 Repair Bots and Quantum Capacitors, Neutral/Neutral stance, most of their weapon slots filled with S/M Blasters with a little extra PD, and set 50% shield retreat. Think of them as super-durable Cruisers with a big Fighter belly. They will draw lots of attention away from the main damage dealers in the fleet and typically survive. Though they're slower than the rest of the fleet, they'll head in the right direction and easily soak long-range fire before joining the fray. These fighters are mostly to defend against enemy fighters, but it's worth mentioning that Blaster bombers are very strong.

Your primary attack fleets will be few and large- you want swift, decisive victories by trying to eliminate hostile fleets one at a time. With few attack fleets, the automation will similarly assign few Attack Points, meaning that when the automated attack fleets go offensive, it'll often be joined by one or two of the other big attack fleets. This is what you want with Blaster fleets.

I recommend extra fuel ships for these big fleets.

The other attack fleets will remain more-or-less defensive and engage Threats. Set the ship Engagement Range to Same Location. You don't want the fleet to split up throughout the system.

Numerous tiny, swift raid fleets with stealth works very well for an empire like this. Make them so numerous that only an overwhelmingly larger empire could hope to respond with an entire defense fleet to each. They will handle the stations so your attack fleets don't have to waste fuel on them.

You'll need to make sure your Invasion fleets are well-prepared and strong. Lots of infantry in your invasions will allow you to leave space undefended to quickly move on to the next target. Endurance is the Blaster fleet's weak point, so sticking around for repeated engagements against an overwhelming enemy isn't a good idea.

A couple of disposable 'defense' fleets manually assigned to hunt down spotted invasion fleets is a good idea, as if they were Hive carriers. If it's too strong, the invasion fleet will flee on sight, so the big attack fleets aren't the best at this.

Missiles/Torpedoes will primarily be on your support ships and stations, as well as rear weapon slots on your offensive ships. They're also good for All-Purpose defense fleets, which don't need speed and can focus on resilience- the thing Blaster fleets aren't good at. Don't build such a defense fleet until you have at least two large attack fleets and need additional coverage.

Lots of good info here.

How do you feel about Rail Guns and Graviton Beams? I like the idea of rail guns chewing through shields and hitting internal components, but it depends on how much armour the enemy has. Haven't really played around much with graviton beams which work similarly in theory.

You've mentioned rail gun PD quite a few times in various posts. Does that extend to fighters?

[jorgen_cab]

Originally posted by APhoenixSoaring:

In my experience, I hardly ever think "That ship would have survived if it had better weaponry" or "That ship would have survived if it had better defences". Most of the time, I'm looking at cohesive enemy fleets defeating the ships in my fleet in detail because they are out of position.

This is the reason why you don't need high mobility on missile armed ships... with more long range weapons they instead focus on firepower and they are rarely going to be out of position due to weapon range.

I think you need to rediscover how important range and firepower can be. I urge you to try and test this. For purely long range missile ships I most often put very little defences on them and often strip of an engine or two if I can fit more weapons as a result. The more firepower the more devastating damage they will do to the enemy fleet. Other fleets will trade shields and engines for weapons... so even if they are slower and less defended the missile fleet will end up with high DPS and good range. As soon as a ship is targeted it disengage and flee and then jump back into combat and as it has long range can begin fire again almost immediately.

As you found missiles to be a bit weak you might at least try a different design and see if this does not work better.

[Nightskies]

Railguns for PD and fighters are very strong against fighters because fighter armor is weak. It takes fewer hits to destroy one with railguns, and they're easily incapacitated due to their low component count along with tiny HPs. While railguns have the worst accuracy, this is remedied by a targeting computer and interceptors, and recent updates have improved PD accuracy (I haven't tested since that update). Additionally, in a large battlefield, laser/blaster PD requires chained hits against the same target to be effective, as fighters quickly zip out of range of individual ships, allowing them to regenerate their shield if it isn't broken. This isn't a problem for railgun PD- fighters don't regenerate armor so easily.

The tradeoff is that railgun PD is comparatively terrible against seeking, and the better railgun PD are larger and more expensive, but you get what you pay for. Then in the late game, phase cannons are better for fighters, and ion PD for ships. I'd recommend picking railgun PD when you're sizing up against a strong foe with lots of fighters (not just Teekan and Ackdarians) or you lack fighters yourself.

For Gravitons, have a look at this first: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1531540/discussions/0/3875969300102221459/#c3946902838127467324

I've also done Gravitons with the Haakonish and Humans, and last night reloaded the Haakonish (who crushed a Mortalen empire under manual control using two Dealbreaker Destroyer attack fleets and a host of Maxos Blaster raiders, with several defensive Dealbreaker frigate fleets) to also see if I could get them to auto-capture stations often while seeing how the empire did overall with automation. They disastrously failed in both regards. The AI isn't made to use such fleets, especially in the face of a larger enemy.

The thing with Gravitons, like Beams, is when they have sufficient concentrated fire, they will devastate components fast enough that enemies will be crippled quickly. In this case, the automation spreads out the Dealbreaker Destroyers around, and when the Mortalen sent in their 2nd Fleet, a fast Torpedo/Railgun fleet, the fleet is easily defeated piecemeal, though they took some with them. Gravitons just don't quite have the range to be good at extended sieges- they have a big damage drop-off, worse than torpedoes.

The ship-to-ship Railgun paired with the heavy variant are almost my favorite primary weapon pair. A well-built Railgun fleet has several points to consider:

• Can easily defeat an equivalent Blaster fleet (player-made) in a straight engagement
  
• Can engage at long-range better than Torpedoes with low to zero damage falloff, but is still much better at close-range
  
• Has bad accuracy, requiring targeting computers and preferably ship targeting bonus
  
• Performs very well comparatively when enemy shields far outclass your own
  
• Absurdly strong when enemies have weak or no armor
  
• Defenses can nullify normal Railguns (but not phasers)
  
• Heavy Railguns don't care how strong defenses are. Even the T2 Heavy Railgun will shatter Ultradense Armor
  
• Uses up a lot of rare choice resources: Aculon, and later, Hexodorium (not good)
  
• Is not a one-setup-wins-all weapon; a planned ratio of Heavy Railguns to normal Railguns is optimal, based on what ratio of armor to shields your enemy uses
  
• Almost no synergy with other weapons. Even ion is less effective with them

With that... I'll get to how to build for automation tomorrow.

[ABoxFullOfKittens]

Based on what I've read above this may be an unpopular opinion:

I recommend using medium rail gun builds for all your ship models. Once you close (which you can negate by dropping on top of someone, micro-permitting) they tend to dominate I find. I am focusing fire though. Also, they double as bombardment weapons, killing planets very quickly.

How many medium rail guns you ask? All of them. Every slot that can take one.

My experience: They cut through everything, within reason, like butter. GWs and tractor beams can be advantageous additions, weight permitting.

[Nightskies]

Normal, M Railguns are indeed strong!

However, their shield-penetrating power does get nullified by advanced defenses. In a normally set-up galaxy with automatically generated empires, this isn't likely to be an issue. If you make stronger AI empires with higher starting tech, it will be much more likely to happen.

Anyway, t4 shields and t3 ion armor have a resistance of 2 and reactive of 5, and the t4 railgun has 20 base damage, 40% shield bypass, and -20% armor bypass. At 0 range, the railgun does 20 damage. Shield resistance mitigates it to 18. 10.8 damage goes to the shield. 7.2 goes through the shield. The railgun loses 1.4 damage to armor from negative armor bypass, and the armor reactive mitigates 5 more. The railgun does less than 0.4 damage to armor and 10.8 to the shield. That's not even taking into account the damage falloff (ships never fire at 0 range) and poor accuracy. Just looking at that, even the t3 Maxos Blaster does better with more range, accuracy, and DPS overall.

The Talassos t4 shield has a 8% chance of 40% shield penetration (the t6 Meridan has 0% chance), but now we'll assume t6 reactive armor 790 range and include accuracy (50% at 790 range). With 10% falloff per 1000 and a max range of 1290, the railgun does 18.4 damage on a hit. The shield resistance drops that to 16.4. 9.8 would normally go to the shield from shield bypass, but 3.9 penetrates, so 5.9 damage goes to the shields, and 10.5 goes through. Negative bypass to armor loses 2.1, and 6 is lost to armor reactive rating, leaving 2.4 damage to armor. With this happening 8% of the time, with 0 dps vs armor without this penetration, including 50% accuracy (but not countermeasures or targeting), the railgun is getting an average of 0.1 DPS against armor while shields are up.

A single t4 armor repair bot repairs 0.25/sec on the tag, but does much more in actuality- approximately 8 times more. If that is correct, it would take 20 railguns to beat the armor tank of a ship with several Talassos shields and 1 Ion Sheath v2 with a t4 repair bot.

Again though, that's assuming the AI has superior tech to the player. I suggest doing as much. So this makes railguns look bad, but... Heavy Railguns save the day. I'll get to that later today (hopefully).