Plasma vs Lasers

[RedMarth]

I seem to see a big preference for Plasma over lasers in guides I've read. I have 2 questions about this:

1) Lasers have higher DPS and accuracy. Are the Armor/Hull boosts of Plasma really enough to justify using them instead?

2) if so, when do you switch? Right now I'm at T4 lasers and T1 plasma, so the DPS differential is pretty extreme.

Thanks for any tips!

[Danny]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Belhedler:

That's a tough question.

It is not. Laser have use only in early game when you lack autocannons (they combined with plasma far supreme even in role of corvette-hunting).

In late game they're totaly obsolete.

The top tier lasers and gauss cannons have better stats then plasma and autocannons, except firing speed.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Danny:

The top tier lasers and gauss cannons have better stats then plasma and autocannons, except firing speed.

First - lasers have more RoF (I'm looking into game data files now).

Second - plasma is heavily supreme over laser, even top tier. Do you need explanation why, or you will realize it yourself?

Third - if I will play with effective dps calculation, it's became obvious that laser have only advantage against plasma - when dealing with shields

P.S. I'm ignoring "loadout" with only plasma/lasers or only autocannons/gauss as inferior.

[Badger BrownCoat]

If I may add to this;
consider that in Stellaris, like many space games, especially those that use a " hit point" pool instead of per-component internal damage ("critical hit" if you will ) ;
that the "health" ( hull points ) of the vessel is *oddly tanky*
- in my opinion, once you're getting *penetrating* hits it *SHOULD* be pretty damn lethal.

However, opinion/taste aside,
consider the math- the "hull" of a starting corvette, for example, is 300.
with three shield/armor slots that will add 150 (divided as you chose ).
Of course, higher tier shield/armor is worth much more, but the advanced hulls ( considerably buffing 'hull' hit points ) are available as well.

So, using low-tier corvettes as an extreme example, the "hull" is 2/3 of the damage you need to do.
As mentioned earlier, this scales intensely with starbases-
these are picky examples, but in general, I often find more than 1/2 of a ships' *overall* 'hit points' - shield, armor, hull, is the hull itself ( as pointed out above, some of the enemies are far more weighted to "hull" hit points.)

So, generally speaking, hull damage is the single most useful damage type... as long we understand that's quite a 'conditional' rule of thumb.

Finally, rarely mentioned ( if someone did I missed it, my apologies ) -
is there's the mechanic I call "structural integrity" - which is that 1/2 of the %damage to hull is a *penalty to the ship's fire rate* - in essence representing component damage, "critical hits", what-not, abstractly. You may have noticed ships losing 'combat value' as their hull is damaged, or noticed repairing ships with wildly different Combat Value despite same hull and same xp level... this is what you're seeing.
This may have you reconsider the value of disruptors and such penetrating weapons, despite their poor dps and unreliable damage RNG.

Your thread came up while I was working on my mod;
so I'm quite interested in feedback, one's experience is always anecdotal. <o

[Jewbacca]

Plasma is better against all things except corvettes. As long as you bring anti-shield stuff too.

Corvettes has very large evasion so you need lasers against them for extra tracking, and accuracy.

When it comes to AI you need plasma only until you get proton, and neutron launchers. Those beats all anti-armor weapon in damage, and dps. Only problem is accuracy, but that's not relevant unless enemy spams corvettes, and AI won't do that.

Anti shield weapons are simpler. You go with the basic kinetic weapons until you get mega/giga cannon. Lategame general battleship is 1 giga cannon, and the rest is neutron launchers. It tears every normal enemy into shreds in record time.

[Danny]

AI generally brings atleast some Corvettes, so while your big guns deal with their battleships, the covettes are free to shoot you. XD

[Fracture]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Fracture:

I may be talking complete nonsense here, but I think plasma + disruptor is the best way to go.

Disruptor? It's ignore shields&armor. So you have one weapon that need to deal with shield&armor, while another - don't. Results will be ... meh.

Or you want to say "Null Void Beam"? Yean, it's a nice addition and interesting alternative for Kinetic Battery.

Originally posted by Fracture:

Enemy ships usually build countermeasures for missiles, and those are useless against energy attack.

Point defence still have quite high damage output, so it's unwise to fight it with something like mix of penetrating and non-penetrating weapons.

Originally posted by Fracture:

important stuff: you need lasers maximised in order to get tachion lance, the X-sided weapon for cruisers.

You're wrong here. Twicely :)

1) You need T4 lasers (x-ray) and never need gamma lasers for anything. And you need them both for NT and tachyons ;)

2) X-sized weapons are for battleships only.

Just now got to see this message, it's not necro, since the discussion is still going on. To answer, let me do it point, by point. First of all, duh, Battleships?! I don't know what I could possibly be thinking when I said cruisers... Maybe StarWars? idfk.

I didn't notice by then the disruptors had already changed (they used to cause 200% shield damage instead of ignoring shields and armors). I should have checked, or maybe this change happened during the interval between my original answer and @corisai reply

These days almost no AI controlled empire builds any form of point defence, so that point is now moot.

About the need for lasers tech to be maximised before you get tachion lance, It's been long since I noticed that you only need up to laser 4, and when I did I wondered if they had changed the prerequisite, now revisiting this discussion that same doubt creeps up again. I'm inclined to believe I was wrong and simply never noticed laser 5 wasn't the prerequisite for the X-sized lances.

As for the lances, I don't use them anymore, since the rework of disruptors and x-sized arc weapons I use those instead. and the energy torpedoes in L slots. All those ignore shield and armor completely.

(I sometimes have alternative builds for fighting specific enemies, but that's my bread and butter)

[Badger BrownCoat]

I find it interesting that the last two previous responses both more or less address "corvette" versus "capitol ship" - compete with disucussion of what we traditionally call "secondary batteries" and why big ships kept them when getting over run by 'torpedo boats"
- and thus the creation of the "torpedo boat destroyer" - better known now as the shortened "Destroyer" - which is this game, is by default your 'picket' line between them and the "line" ships.
Abstracted, but conceptually intact.
`while my mod restores traditional 'torpedoes' as short-range anti-capitol ship weapons` ; it could be argued that the plasma torpedo/launcher already does this.
What vanilla calls "torpedos" I call something else- but in esssence, the corvette is fulfilling the tradiotnal roleof 'torpedo boat' - even though what *it* calls a torpedo boat uses "G" guided missile slots, and is the 'odd man out ' of corvettes ( the "G" slow torpedo being more useful when used at short range anyway)...


As to Fracture's post - the whole rework changed quite a bit, yes-
and the changes to disruptor/arc etc- the "penetrating" weapons- takes advantage of the 'structural integrity' game mechanic ( hull damage penalty to damaged ship's fire rate ) -
so- not necessarily on topic for plasma vs laser, *BUT* very relevant to teh current rock/paper/scissors damage model they've overhauled the combat system into.
And you see *his* preferred solution is, skip the first two - go *straight* for the hull.

Lastly- he also points out the AI still not using PD often or well.
They*overhauled* weapons, forced a "PD" size mount, to fix that - and it sounds like I'm not the only one not impressed with the results, if I read Fracture right.
Youtuber "a spec" made a video that was *menat* to be a joke, "Florida Man Flaks" or something similar- and what the intended joke turned into was, revealing how effective the raw ps of PD weapons is, even with armor debuff.

I had already added " Dual Purpose" guns ( i.e. - corvette-size gus *are* dual-purpose guns )
to make this not a design flaw but an *intended* effect- his video saved my theory a good *bit* of playtesting, as it confirms what
I'd suspected from the weapon spreadsheet numbers.

Again, very useful to have others' experience when you are balancing a mod.

[Badger BrownCoat]

as a ps;
one of the issues with continuing to think of traditional "naval combat" as a model for "space combat" as many games and even tv/movies do - is that ..it's just wrong.

But- as long as it's fun "it'll do" for most purposes I figure.

Where this may came up in Stellaris though is in ship classes / default roles;
and engagement range.
In Vanilla, "pickets" want to range at 30- which is still effectively point-blank 'swarm' range
( what traditionally we'd call torpedo boat range - GET UP IN THERE )...
like the US Destroyers charging the Yamoto at Leyte Gulf...

while cruisers default "line" behavior puts them at 50 range- weapons destroyers have.
( and our 'picket' destroyers are at 'corvette' swarm range )


Logically "ship of the line" - ship of the line of battle- is literally where "battleship" comes from;
and *cruisers* were *NEVER* primary ships of the line, thus their name.

Stellaris Battleships weapons tend to be "artillery" range - which is 80.

One of the issues here is that, in Vanilla, using default ship 'role' behavior;
the *real* "Line of Battle" is at 'artillery' range and your cruisers and destroyers have a hard time doing any kind of meaningful 'screening' job when the corvettes charging your battleships only have to move to range 80-
aside from ships you WANT kept out of combat - why you made them 'artillery'
- are staying at no longer range than your "battleships of the line".

It sounds odd, but in effect, we've all seen it the fleets just slam into a big blob and it feels like all your "combat role" did was change some fire rate modifiers.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/xdnGmYe.png[/img]

[corisai]

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

It sounds odd, but in effect, we've all seen it the fleets just slam into a big blob

Actually this IS very realistic ;) if you remember how slow & blind were WW1/2-era ships (this why they used so many "picket" ship - mostly for recon & counter-piracy)

In Stellaris we are lacking any trade so don't need to protect our civilians ships plus our ships are VERY fast and toothless (against planets). So big stacks & biggest ships you could afford are rule again.

We have either this reality or modern-one when direct guns on ships are almost dead because of mass-produced super- and hyper- sonic ASM any large vessel is extremly vulnerable. In that case we would prefer tons and tons of corvettes with OP missiles (like it was for a quick time in Stellaris).

[Sabaithal]

You know, they could overhaul the trade system in this game, or rather the real lack thereof. Lets face it, its kinda minimalist compared to what I would be expecting. Just hear me out.

- The player MANUALLY designates a route between two viable trade worlds. It could just be click on world A, then on world B, and the game auto-finds the shortest route if the player wants. But this way it avoid needless complex calculations that could gunk up the game engine.

- Civilian ships that are also autogenerated from these trade resources start moving along the route towards the other planet(s) on that route. These ships have decent hull strength, but no defenses or weapons.

- Pirate ships have a chance to spawn based on the density of the trade route, and the trade ships. Patrolling fleets on that route could lower that spawn chance to a certain state, but there would always be some minimum level based on the trade density along that route. This ensures that the player would need to have a combat-capable patrol, not just a bunch of unarmed corvettes. This also means that if the route is long enough that multiple patrols would be needed to cover that route effectively.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Sabaithal:

The player MANUALLY designates a route between two viable trade worlds. It could just be click on world A, then on world B, and the game auto-finds the shortest route if the player wants. But this way it avoid needless complex calculations that could gunk up the game engine.

...

Do you often play on 1k stars maps?

I'm love micromanagement but doing everything you're suggesting for a bit of energy... Jesus no! It's almost 2020 nowadays. AI should easily pick best possible routes (just set adequate limit on their amounts).

But yean I really want more DW:U elements in Stellaris :) Almost nothing beat that game in a feeling of thriving space empire when you see thousands of civlian trade ships on their routes. Still it's lagging so ...

P.S. And with incoming DW2 announce & Aurora 4X C# remake will be released in 2020 even if will be partially finished - PDX need to do something REALLY big to grab my attention ^_^

[Ninjamestari]

Pfft... Just use strike craft, they're easily the most powerful weapon in the game.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Ninjamestari:

Pfft... Just use strike craft, they're easily the most powerful weapon in the game.

So PDX finally forced strike craft pilots to get license and they are no longer flying directly into star after occasional party?

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

It sounds odd, but in effect, we've all seen it the fleets just slam into a big blob

Actually this IS very realistic ;) if you remember how slow & blind were WW1/2-era ships (this why they used so many "picket" ship - mostly for recon & counter-piracy)

In Stellaris we are lacking any trade so don't need to protect our civilians ships plus our ships are VERY fast and toothless (against planets). So big stacks & biggest ships you could afford are rule again.

We have either this reality or modern-one when direct guns on ships are almost dead because of mass-produced super- and hyper- sonic ASM any large vessel is extremly vulnerable. In that case we would prefer tons and tons of corvettes with OP missiles (like it was for a quick time in Stellaris).

Incorrect on several counts: * it is the opposite of realistic* for one; lol
'picket ships ahead of the line' was seen at every major naval engagement, for another- with an exception...
first, even to ww2, ships were so rarely at "short" range that the ONE exception where they were, is famously called " the bar room brawl" at guadalcanal ( second battle ) - where the fleets stumbled onto each other at night, and the japanese fleet still had shore- bombardment HE ready.
The difficulty of closing to short range was demonstrated by the US destroyers at Leyte gulf, north, as well as Leyte Gulf- south ( where they were in ambush near land- and covered by supporting fire by battleships the japanese THOUGHT were sunk at pearl harbor.

If you'll look at range for world war 1 and world war 2, you will see they were RARELY at "bar room brawl range" - WHICH IS WHY THE EXCEPTION IS FAMOUS - and cetainly were not "blobs"
- so - lets try NOT arguing what's "realistic" when you are simply uninformed.

Further, by ww2, because of the use of planes, most ships were in effect concentric rings of "pickets" for the carriers.
SO, yes, picket range mattered then, AND matters now.
Carriers move with an escort group for a REASON.

In Stellaris we *DO* have trade, and it needs to be protected.
That's better done by corvettes than destroyers or light cruisers, in stellaris;
but: again, your statement is patently *false*.
*EDIT* - later i realized trade routes exist in an expansion/DLC you may not own, so while technicaly in game, may not be for you, and i was unnecessarily hostile.
Accept my apology if you will; I think we can agree that *should* be part of the role of ships not menat to be 'in the line of batttle' and needing convoy escort & patrol *should* be in the game- not a DLC... ?

*Should* cutting off trade and supply be more important?
Absolutely- imo at least - but I'm pretty sure I stated that.
Ideally there's more for ships to do - meaningfully- than "doomstack"-
as there are in other PDX games, but again, I'd already said that, so countering with a patently untrue statement as a dismissal is at best disingenuous.

Originally posted by Sabaithal:

You know, they could overhaul the trade system in this game, or rather the real lack thereof. Lets face it, its kinda minimalist compared to what I would be expecting. Just hear me out....

Well, come to the modder's den. *I* like how you're thinking.
Compare pdx's hearts/iron4 naval to stellaris's naval operations :(
Anyhow: ...so far the 'commercial pact with no route' I modded out - must be neighbor- but an ongoing problem is, they made commerce pacts and 'collect resources' into the code BEFORE they added 'trade routes' logic (in an expansion)... so sadly they did not apply that logic to what they'd already "hard coded' ; limiting what we can mod with their permission.
MY own idea- 'commercial pact creates trade route' ( supply and demand, or no trade ) isn't so far viable without re-writing source code.
..If you've cut off enemy systems and - or seen your own cut off- and wondered how you are "transporting" those resources home for use, that's why.
"hard coding" that in essence negates the ability to 'raid' trade or supplies - part of why *barbarian despoilers' impressed no one. That only pirates can destroy stations now ( a related, but separate discussion - several threads on it), compounds any attempt at making assymetric warfare a more valid playstyle.

Finally,
overpowered missiles?
the problem in previous versions was missiles were not being countered by point defense- they added the "PD" mount to force the ai to use them, and had to give all missile shield pen.
The other issue was all mounts having a missile, so especially early game one could be missile swarmed despite the bad dps- but there were always better options.

*In reality?*
we moved from the " big guns" era- the arms race created by the launch of the HMS dreadnought-
to the 'strike craft ' :) era, to the current 'surface missile strike era' where the modern 'guide misssile destroyer' like the Burke is larger than a traditional "cruiser" - and still mounts dual-purpose guns, but has an impressive array of Vertical Launch System missiles.
*But* to assume we will always be in a 'surface missile' era is.. also unsie. We've never seen an actual missile versus anti missile large scale surface- no one *really* knows what happens which is why it's been so intensely simulated.
*Most* simulations imply the ships are far from easy kills - and the increasing success of anti-air and anti missile point defense implies we may be moving out of the era.

Lastly:

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Ninjamestari:

Pfft... Just use strike craft, they're easily the most powerful weapon in the game.

So PDX finally forced strike craft pilots to get license and they are no longer flying directly into star after occasional party?

No, sorry; they didn't.
If you check the stellaris mega-thread of known issues on reddit, you'll see strike craft being underpowered and broken is *still* a known issue on the bug list 'to be addressed'
- their DPS - compare it to most L weapons at same tech rate- isn't that amazing, and you know the dps is.. a "generous" calculation , as you joked how much time thy waste. Still true.
There's also the issue of their fire rate, despite the tool tip, *not* being affected by ship fire rate from empire modifiers- which sounds fine until you know how much of stellaris' combat is really about the global modifiers.
NinjaMeister *probably* finds them OP in his game by playing single-player against AI that -despite PDX's attempted fix- still aren't mounting PD weapons. but you can compare dps and post-damage battle reports to test it yourself (if you don't trust a coder , or the mega-thread about it )
As they are on my starbases by default ( see image ); I've tracked the numbers and keep an eye out for balance changes.
https://i.imgur.com/xdnGmYe.png

[corisai]

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

In Stellaris we *DO* have trade, and it needs to be protected.
That's better done by corvettes than destroyers or light cruisers, in stellaris;
but: again, your statement is patently *false*.
*EDIT* - later i realized trade routes exist in an expansion/DLC you may not own, so while technicaly in game, may not be for you, and i was unnecessarily hostile.

AI ever harrased your trade routes with smaller fleets? No. You need "guard" your trade from 100% artificial pirates (and mostly you don't even need any ships to do, as SB will be capable to do it until gateways).

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

where the modern 'guide misssile destroyer' like the Burke is larger than a traditional "cruiser" - and still mounts dual-purpose guns, but has an impressive array of Vertical Launch System missiles.

All modern warships are became larger then WW2 era ones. Economy is growing in the end :) Burke also good example of bad design. Universal Launchers seems good on paper, but in reality... They're always lacking enough ASM or AAM. And because of same space limitations applied to both ASM & AAM in the end it have no modern anti-ship AND anti-air missiles.

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

*Most* simulations imply the ships are far from easy kills -so much so that china is trying to develop a kinetic-kill from orbit alternative to guided missiles-- and the increasing success of anti-air and anti missile point defense implies we may be moving out of the era.

Even basic knowledge of orbital mechanic will allow you to understand that ballistic anti-ship missile have zero sense and very stupid thing. It's designed as short-range ICBM to be used against major naval bases. China leaks about targeting dummies for testing it proving this too.

Kinetic-kill is simply useless and unable to work in RL. Hint : they're lack near-miss-hits proved by warheads + you can't achive direct hit against powered ballistic target (why it so - again, look for basics of orbital mechanics). It was just a marketing trick (plus it's INCREDIBLY hard & expensive to create AMM in real life).

You're right it's very hard to predict what weapons we will end in the future. But our existing story show that we never "replayed" obsolete concepts. So it's seems very unlikely that we see line battleships again.