Is Dragon Scale plating better than Crystal hull plating?

[ImperialForce9]

The wiki doesn't give me the hull amount for Dragon scale.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Dragonscale is an armor, not an hull, increase.

[EleventhStar]

durasteel is same hp as crystal infused plating. (and same as advance shield)

neotronium armor is more hp than those two. (hyper shield)

dragonscale is same hp as crystal forged plating and the most you can get. (dark matter shield)

and psi shield is even better.

[HappySack]

No, and armour is never better than more hull when you have either type of crystal plating in most circumstances, dragon scale is just unnecessarily expensive for what it does.

Half of being able to win in war is being able to do so cost-efficiently.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by HappySack:

No, and armour is never better than more hull when you have either type of crystal plating in most circumstances, dragon scale is just unnecessarily expensive for what it does.

Half of being able to win in war is being able to do so cost-efficiently.

i do wonder, people who say this, how many shipyards can you maintain at constant battleship production?

[ImperialForce9]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Originally posted by HappySack:

No, and armour is never better than more hull when you have either type of crystal plating in most circumstances, dragon scale is just unnecessarily expensive for what it does.

Half of being able to win in war is being able to do so cost-efficiently.

i do wonder, people who say this, how many shipyards can you maintain at constant battleship production?

Especially when you only have 6 shipyards max unmodded.

[ScreamCon]

Hull boosts are useful if your finding the enemy is killing your ships before depleting their armour. Particular weapons can bypass both the shields and the armour. Hence is when you implement hull boosting strategies.

[Elitewrecker PT]

You don't have 6 max shipyards. You have 6 shipyards per starbase and as many starbases as you can pay for. Plus the megashipyard and juggernaut.

[HappySack]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

i do wonder, people who say this, how many shipyards can you maintain at constant battleship production?

I don't know between a MegaShipyard and any other starbases but it's still more than anyone who wants to use armour as a defensive component because basic math results in cheaper ships being made in higher numbers.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by HappySack:

I don't know between a MegaShipyard and any other starbases but it's still more than anyone who wants to use armour as a defensive component because basic math results in cheaper ships being made in higher numbers.

yeah but that only matters if you are constantly buying/replacing ships. sounds like a mostly multiplayer situation to me as in singleplayer you can largely take your sweet ass time to build up as long as you want.

and coming from something like starcraft it's much more useful to talk about how many production buildings you can sustain rather than the actual economy part of the equation.

[Tiasmoon]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Originally posted by HappySack:

No, and armour is never better than more hull when you have either type of crystal plating in most circumstances, dragon scale is just unnecessarily expensive for what it does.

Half of being able to win in war is being able to do so cost-efficiently.

i do wonder, people who say this, how many shipyards can you maintain at constant battleship production?

A lot more when you use crystal hull instead of armor. Having 800~1k cost battleships makes a lot of difference.

The same also applies to smaller vessels.

[Tiasmoon]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Originally posted by HappySack:

I don't know between a MegaShipyard and any other starbases but it's still more than anyone who wants to use armour as a defensive component because basic math results in cheaper ships being made in higher numbers.

yeah but that only matters if you are constantly buying/replacing ships. sounds like a mostly multiplayer situation to me as in singleplayer you can largely take your sweet ass time to build up as long as you want.

and coming from something like starcraft it's much more useful to talk about how many production buildings you can sustain rather than the actual economy part of the equation.

Its a singleplayer situation. Your perspective is probably skewed if your using starcraft as comparison. That game throws a lot of spare money in your face. It kind of has to since its resources are limited each game. If the balance is too tight it would be to hard to complete for 99% of players.

''how many production buildings you can sustain'' is a question of economy.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Tiasmoon:

Its a singleplayer situation. Your perspective is probably skewed if your using starcraft as comparison. That game throws a lot of spare money in your face. It kind of has to since its resources are limited each game. If the balance is too tight it would be to hard to complete for 99% of players.

wut? its the other way around this game has infinite resources. resources matter early game, but after you snowball this game is mostly just "spend 100 years building up for the crisis". at which point your fleet is more limited by upkeep rather than your income/efficiency.

''how many production buildings you can sustain'' is a question of economy.

yeah but it's like asking "how good are you at farming" instead of "how much bread can you make?"


most people agree that armor as a component is better than hull, so if you have the time/resources to go for armor instead of hull, why wouldn't you especially if you don't need a lot of replacements fast? like this efficiency talk is nice and all but i just don't feel it applies unless you need a lot of replacement ships.

[Tiasmoon]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

wut? its the other way around this game has infinite resources.

Were my words confusing? Because that is what I wrote. Starcraft has finite resources, hence why it gives the player a lot of excess resources so they are able to complete the mission even if they arent very efficient.

You have a lot more resources available in starcraft then you do in Stellaris, but those resources have a limit. So you are used to not caring about the economy as it doesnt matter as long as you dont approach that limit.

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

resources matter early game, but after you snowball this game is mostly just "spend 100 years building up for the crisis". at which point your fleet is more limited by upkeep rather than your income/efficiency.

I dont play on settings where I have 100 years to mess around preparing for the crisis. So in my case resources matter a lot in the endgame too.
Upkeep is part of the economy too. It is countered by having a higher income. If your fleets are bottlenecked by upkeep itll be because your economy isnt good enough to handle that upkeep. Because you stopped building that economy.

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

''how many production buildings you can sustain'' is a question of economy.

yeah but it's like asking "how good are you at farming" instead of "how much bread can you make?"

What? Both questions should be asked. Thats basics of supply chain and management. Raw material and refinement should be balanced with each other and you need more of both. They are both part of economy.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Tiasmoon:

I dont play on settings where I have 100 years to mess around preparing for the crisis. So in my case resources matter a lot in the endgame too.

yeah i don't wait 100 years either i just quit when i conquer the entire galaxy and it's nowhere near endgame year yet.

ofc the point where you have won is much much earlier than that.

Upkeep is part of the economy too. It is countered by having a higher income. If your fleets are bottlenecked by upkeep itll be because your economy isnt good enough to handle that upkeep. Because you stopped building that economy

well i mean... if you enjoy endlessly spamming habitats and ringworlds more power to you.

but that in itself implies that you have so many more alloys than required for military survival that you are well beyond the point where efficiency matters.

What? Both questions should be asked.

yeah exactly., which is why i asked the question. cause ive never heard it asked people just talk about efficiency never about actual output.

[Tiasmoon]

..efficiency is all about actual output.

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

well i mean... if you enjoy endlessly spamming habitats and ringworlds more power to you.

but that in itself implies that you have so many more alloys than required for military survival that you are well beyond the point where efficiency matters.

Not sure where you are getting that impression. I'm talking about the investment required to get ahead of the AI, defeat them, and then after that take on the crisis.

When I said ''endgame'' I was talking about fighting the crisis. However, efficiency matters all game. In fact it is how you snowball harder. The more efficient you are.. the better your ''everything''

As long as you are not at a point where you can beat the crisis guaranteed, then efficiency matters. And if you are beyond that point.. what does your loadout matter?