Colonies of Man

Post here if you are interested in the balancing of the Tim branded shiplist

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Colonies of Man

Post#1 » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:56 pm

Post ideas about ships for the CofM. This should be used in helping Zap and Bane come up with a new shiplist. Post Ideas about exceptable race advantages too
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#2 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:48 am

CofM
Hull Name______TL__E__B__F__T_Crew_Mass_Fuel_Cargo_Cost_Tri_Dur_Mol

Taurus SC_______1__2__2__-__-__180___95__590___140___50__40__20___5
Cygnus DD______1__1__4__-__4__190___90__130____50___70__50__25___7
Little Joe ES______2__1__6__-__-__175___65___85____20___50__26__42__15
Cobol RCC_______4__2__4__-__2__286__115__450___250__150__37__32__23
Aries AFR________5__2__2__-__-__226___69__260___260___65__12__14__25
Sagittarius TR_____5__2__2__1__-__226___99__450___300___75__12__14__38
Lady Royale CC___5__2__4__-__1__270__130__670___160__250__61__52__83
Patriot LCV_______6__1__2__6__-__172___90__140____30___90__45___5__35
Tranquility CC_____6__2__4__-__2__330__160__460___380__140__71__42__43
Gemini TR________6__2__4__1__-__326__140__350___400__145__42__14__48
Virgo SCV_______10__8_10__8__-_1858__625_1550___290__887_371_142_142

These are the two broken hulls in the CofM fleet.

Scorpius LCV_____6__4__4__2__-__958__315__250____90__287_231__92__82
NScorpius CV_____6__3__4__4__-__958__200__250____90__287_231__92__82


Iron Lady FF______9__2__8__-__2___99__150__210____60__290__23__22__47
NIron Lady FF_____9__2__8__-__2__198__150__210____60__290__23__22__47
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#3 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:09 am

Four bays still makes the Scorpius worthless, unless you intend to put one engine on it.

The Scorpius should have six bays and four engines and increase the tech level to eight or nine. The CoM does not need another light carrier. They need a medium carrier. Something comparable to the Cylon Automa, but less powerful. The Automa, with 8 bays, is more of a heavy carrier.

The TList solution is not terrible also: five bays and three engines.

The Virgo, as we discussed, could be reduced to six engines, but that will have to be tested in a game to see if it makes it too easy to build Virgos. If it is left at eight engines the beams should be reduced to eight and the bays increased to ten. I think reducing it to six engines is a better solution as the Virgo shouldn't really be a supercarrier in keeping with the CoM 'refugee' status.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Regarding the Virgo

Post#4 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:00 am

One of the things to look at is total cost to build and deploy.

The Virgo is not expensive to build nor supply.

Compare:
10/8 Virgo:
887$
655 TDM
dirt cheap fighters
1450 supplies for 290 fighters
1450 minerals for 290 fighters

doesn't need big beams for sweeping (except webs)
Cols have a massive fuel supply (unmatched)
Cols have an additional money production via LRoyale.
Cols don't have to convert minerals to fuel, they get it free.
Cols don't have to convert supplies to cash for fighters so
those supplies become minerals which become virgoes.

versus:
10/10 Biocide:
910$
1233 TDM
32000 to load it.
1600 minerals for 320 fighters
Virgo is half the mineral demand of a Biocide and a total cost to build
fighters of 290X5= 1450 supplies. Less that 5% of what the borg
have to pay. Borg can resupply their fronts via chunnel.

versus:
10/10 Gorbie:
790$
1015 TDM
1250 minerals for fighters
Free fighters + bases to build suffient fighters
Compared to the empire, 60% of the minerals and no need to
build bases to make fighters or buy fighters. Cols build ftrs on
the frontline, the EE has to bring along fighter carriers to keep
the gorbies in action. It's 1000 minerals for the gorbie and 900
for each base to produce the fighters before the EE even builds
a gorbie. 3 Virgoes can be produced out of what the EE needs
to build and undersupply a single Gorbie.

versus:
6/10 Golem:
990$
645 TDM
dirt cheap fighters.

4/8 Automa:
690$
418 TDM
dirt cheap fighters.

Golems are equivalent.
Bot mines are useless against Cols.
The Instrum is mine vulnerable and once damaged cannot be
repaired in the field.
The Automa is good, but it is not a match for the Virgo.
Put a torper in front of the Virgo and trade a Cygnus or
an Iron Lady for an Automa.
Bots have no torp front.
To front their carriers, they have to use the Instrum.

versus:
5/10 Rush:
987$
655 TDM
dirt cheap fighters.

Rush is equivalent with the glaring minesweep problem and no
way to fix it other than drive through and hope or place on the
rush heavy phasers which except when fighting the crystals,
the CofM will never do. H.PH's grossly increase the cost of the
Rush. Depending upon ES bonus, the Rebs can use Gaurdian
as a front.

Changing a Virgo:
I disagree strongly that the Virgo needs changing.
Even the eight engine demand is not a big deal.
600$ and a smidgeon of minerals.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Re: Regarding the Virgo

Post#5 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:11 pm

B A N E wrote:One of the things to look at is total cost to build and deploy.

The Virgo is not expensive to build nor supply.

Compare:
10/8 Virgo:
887$
655 TDM
dirt cheap fighters
1450 supplies for 290 fighters
1450 minerals for 290 fighters

doesn't need big beams for sweeping (except webs)
Cols have a massive fuel supply (unmatched)
Cols have an additional money production via LRoyale.
Cols don't have to convert minerals to fuel, they get it free.
Cols don't have to convert supplies to cash for fighters so
those supplies become minerals which become virgoes.


Building LRC's is problematical: Either you build a LRC or you build a more useful ship. If we adopt the engine changes I have shown you, the LRC will become considerably more expensive. It already takes three turns to recover the cost of a LRC, the engine changes will mean it will take at least 4 turns.

You also did not figure in the cost of eight TWs for 2400$

B A N E wrote:versus:
10/10 Biocide:
910$
1233 TDM
32000 to load it.
1600 minerals for 320 fighters
Virgo is half the mineral demand of a Biocide and a total cost to build
fighters of 290X5= 1450 supplies. Less that 5% of what the borg
have to pay. Borg can resupply their fronts via chunnel.


Everyone knows the Borg are weak at the start of the game, but once they have assimillated a few 50K native planets they start getting money fast. 32KMCrs sounds outrageous to load a Biocide, but it's not all that bad when you have 20 planets bringing in 1000MCr's a turn.

A Virgo doesn't stand a chance against a Biocide. Two Virgo's might beat one Biocide. Three will.

B A N E wrote:versus:
10/10 Gorbie:
790$
1015 TDM
1250 minerals for fighters
Free fighters + bases to build suffient fighters
Compared to the empire, 60% of the minerals and no need to
build bases to make fighters or buy fighters. Cols build ftrs on
the frontline, the EE has to bring along fighter carriers to keep
the gorbies in action. It's 1000 minerals for the gorbie and 900
for each base to produce the fighters before the EE even builds
a gorbie. 3 Virgoes can be produced out of what the EE needs
to build and undersupply a single Gorbie.


As with the borg, They start rather weak. The EE also has the SSD wich can take out any unguarded planet.

B A N E wrote:versus:
6/10 Golem:
990$
645 TDM
dirt cheap fighters.

4/8 Automa:
690$
418 TDM
dirt cheap fighters.

Golems are equivalent.
Bot mines are useless against Cols.
The Instrum is mine vulnerable and once damaged cannot be
repaired in the field.
The Automa is good, but it is not a match for the Virgo.
Put a torper in front of the Virgo and trade a Cygnus or
an Iron Lady for an Automa.
Bots have no torp front.
To front their carriers, they have to use the Instrum.


I promise you, I would certainly trade a Cat's Paw for a Virgo.
One on one the only deciding factor between the Automa winning or the Virgo winning is which player gets the left side of the combat.
I'd also happily trade an Automa for a Virgo and a Cygnus or two. Yes, the Automa is 12PBPs to build and the Virgo is 7PBPs to kill, but the Virgo's cost is:
$:3307, T:405, D:270, M:442+150 fighters=$:4057, T:855, D:270, M:742
+1 Cygnus&16Mk VII torps
$:1434, T:77, D:69, M:90
=$:5491, T:932, D:339, M:832
vs
$:2498, T:153, D:338, M:255+100 fighters=$:2998, T:453, D:338, M:455
Costing the CoM: $:2493, T:479, D:1, M:377
Almost enough to build another Automa+100 fighters.
Two Automas in a row will easily take out The Virgo and any front ships the CoM cares to use.

B A N E wrote:versus:
5/10 Rush:
987$
655 TDM
dirt cheap fighters.

Rush is equivalent with the glaring minesweep problem and no
way to fix it other than drive through and hope or place on the
rush heavy phasers which except when fighting the crystals,
the CofM will never do. H.PH's grossly increase the cost of the
Rush. Depending upon ES bonus, the Rebs can use Gaurdian
as a front.


Again, a Rush will take out at least one Virgo, not counting fronting ships. No Rebel player with any sense would put anything but X-rays on a Rush that will be facing a Virgo. CoM isn't all that good at laying MFs.

B A N E wrote:Changing a Virgo:
I disagree strongly that the Virgo needs changing.
Even the eight engine demand is not a big deal.
600$ and a smidgeon of minerals.


We can go 'round and 'round about this for as long as either of us cares to debate it. I suggest that some of the test games have altered Virgos to see what the actual effects are.

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#6 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:44 pm

where do you calculate your battles???

the second virgo has a 81% chance to kill a bio or gorbie even when fighting from the right side. the first one has a 17% chance to kill the biggsters when fighting from the left side.

you have a good chance to kill a rush with your first virgo; it´s at 30% in average. the rush is better versus other carriers but worse against planets. look here for a detailed comparison of carriers:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~donovan/info/master.htm

the lady is not a good ship, but building one with s1s above a planet is easily done and pays off many times. plus it can lay mines if needed.

anyway, i think you always build half your virgoes with crappy engines so money does not matter in the end!

and one more thing: the robot should never use his precious cats for combat ;)
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#7 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:53 pm

On a side note, the Lady needs to have some work done on it as well.
ITS A PLEASURE ship, not a fuel hauler. The Cargo should be increased and fuel should be decreased.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#8 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:34 pm

Enemy#1 wrote:On a side note, the Lady needs to have some work done on it as well.
ITS A PLEASURE ship, not a fuel hauler. The Cargo should be increased and fuel should be decreased.


yes. i agree on that one too.

it needs at least twice the cargo.
the privy would be pissed though, if you reduce the fuel-tank ;)

it needs some fuel, cause it cruises through the stars, carrying filthy rich people around....

what about 400 cargo and 400 fuel?
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#9 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:50 pm

hennef wrote:
Enemy#1 wrote:On a side note, the Lady needs to have some work done on it as well.
ITS A PLEASURE ship, not a fuel hauler. The Cargo should be increased and fuel should be decreased.


yes. i agree on that one too.

it needs at least twice the cargo.
the privy would be pissed though, if you reduce the fuel-tank ;)

it needs some fuel, cause it cruises through the stars, carrying filthy rich people around....

what about 400 cargo and 400 fuel?

You can always make up the drop in fuel to the Pirate with a different ship, Cargo is a little more than I had thought about, Fuel is closer with that kind of Cargo though. Still up for debate either way.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#10 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:09 pm

Enemy#1 wrote:
hennef wrote:
Enemy#1 wrote:On a side note, the Lady needs to have some work done on it as well.
ITS A PLEASURE ship, not a fuel hauler. The Cargo should be increased and fuel should be decreased.


yes. i agree on that one too.

it needs at least twice the cargo.
the privy would be pissed though, if you reduce the fuel-tank ;)

it needs some fuel, cause it cruises through the stars, carrying filthy rich people around....

what about 400 cargo and 400 fuel?

You can always make up the drop in fuel to the Pirate with a different ship, Cargo is a little more than I had thought about, Fuel is closer with that kind of Cargo though. Still up for debate either way.


double the original cargo and make it the same amount of fuel then.

that would be 320 cargo and 320 fuel.
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#11 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:18 pm

Do you really want someone producing 1600$ per turn out of five ships?
:shock:
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#12 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:42 pm

B A N E wrote:Do you really want someone producing 1600$ per turn out of five ships?
:shock:


why not... time for me to play the privies again :roll:
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#13 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:50 pm

B A N E wrote:Do you really want someone producing 1600$ per turn out of five ships?
:shock:


I play CoM all the time and I have to say: NO WAY. Even if you put four engines on the thing to raise the cost and make it proportional. Still, no way. Part of the issue with building LRCs is that they use a build at one of your bases. I do think the ship is a bit of a waste, but I can't see any way around it.
It is a poor solution that I see no way to improve.

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#14 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:46 pm

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
B A N E wrote:Do you really want someone producing 1600$ per turn out of five ships?
:shock:


I play CoM all the time and I have to say: NO WAY. Even if you put four engines on the thing to raise the cost and make it proportional. Still, no way. Part of the issue with building LRCs is that they use a build at one of your bases. I do think the ship is a bit of a waste, but I can't see any way around it.
It is a poor solution that I see no way to improve.

All I am saying is that the LCR is a gambling ship and not a fuel hauler. Keep the Cargo where it is at and change the Gas tank. We would have to fix a Pirate ship to make up for it though.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#15 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:12 pm

Enemy#1 wrote:
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
B A N E wrote:Do you really want someone producing 1600$ per turn out of five ships?
:shock:


I play CoM all the time and I have to say: NO WAY. Even if you put four engines on the thing to raise the cost and make it proportional. Still, no way. Part of the issue with building LRCs is that they use a build at one of your bases. I do think the ship is a bit of a waste, but I can't see any way around it.
It is a poor solution that I see no way to improve.

All I am saying is that the LCR is a gambling ship and not a fuel hauler. Keep the Cargo where it is at and change the Gas tank. We would have to fix a Pirate ship to make up for it though.


You don't like the giant fuel tanks because...?
You don't like the Pirates having a ship with giant fuel tanks?

As I see it you're wanting to make a change to remove functionality from a ship that really ought to have some other purpose than the Gambling function.

Personally, I'm thinking we ought to remove all the weapons (ever heard of a cruise ship with a phalanx system?) and slightly increase the cargo holds. (200 Kts of cargo and 3 engines, maybe...)
I have to say that removing the weapons would not be a good thing for me, but I don't consider it to be in keeping with the function of the ship to have weapons on it. (OK, maybe a cruise ship in the south china sea would have weapons.) In any case, the torpedo tube has to go, at least.

Return to “Project 1: Fixing Tim's List”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron