Gwydion5 wrote:


[LIST=1]

....

But rather than assume we should play it out just to be sure in such cases...

So I'm eager to test this as we should see 2 squadrons engage your ships and 2 squadrons engage your bombers...

Metal Memory falls within the tech range, but metal memory is meant to address the lack of leaders for the Harmony...

[/LIST]

Sure thing. Just give me a heads up when you want to give it a shot. My bringing up Metal Memory was in response to the requests that Heroes be accounted for. I don't think either are quite necessary to evaluate the situation.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:


...besides glass cannon fleets tend to only use one style of attack, so what happens when the entire dreadnaught fleet uses all defenses to block your only style of attack. and would sheredyn dreadnaughts be able to use the late game power module? their dreadnaughts do have a bonus for them.

GCD fleets are typically single weapon designs. However, you have multiple different fleets. Some of your fleets are Missiles, some are Kinetics, some are Lasers, some mix in bombers and fighters, etc. The GCD designs are flexibly altered and mass produced. Because they are so cheap and fast to build, you can do that. Dreadnought fleets can't be that flexible. They take too long to build. Furthermore the risk is too great. If you bring a Single Defense or Dual Defense dreadnaught ship into combat, rest assured that there will be a destroyer fleet ready to kill it, because you only need 1-3 destroyers to deal enough damage to kill an undefended dreadnought.

glass cannon fleets may be cheap to build but i think you may be overstating the cost of dreadnaughts, my most expensive dreadnaught with sheredyn with buyout bonus building has always been under 6000 dust, which by that point in thee game, i am making around 15000 per turn. also with some production focused planets you can uusually build one dreadnaught per turn.

T1 GCDs ~ 50-80 Industry

T2 GCDs ~ 150-250 Industry

T3 GCDs ~ 200-300 Industry

I tend to build my fleets with two kinds of ships: Main Combatants, and Support.



The Support ships (1-2 per fleet, usually; often in 1CP hulls) get repair, scouting, and fleet-wide power modules. They get few weapons (often a single token weapon), a single Armor module, and as much defenses as I can cram into the remaining volume.



Main Combatants get just weapons, defenses, and armor. Often multiple modules of it (2 or 3, typically).



Five 4CP Main Combatants, and 2-3 1CP Support, makes an IMO decent fleet. 'course, I'm no expert ...

Ok Thuvian, I've adjusted the Amoeba build a little to address the eternal war faction trait. I know you didn't complain, but honestly in a true multiplayer game I'd never take it. So here is the new faction build.







and here is the tech tree.







Let me know when you will have time to do some more testing. My weekend should be mostly open.

Nice maths and theorycrafting. Kudos on the work put into it too guys. I confess I haven't done multiplayer in awhile due to time constraints, so my point may obviously be out of date to some degree, but in my past battles against the GCD strategies it seemed any relatively equal opponent who had points in knowledge gatherer and/or dust recycler traits would make serious war winning gains from the GCD sacrifices to kill considerably lower amounts of CP, even if the industrial investments were equal to or less for them due to the relative cheapness of the GCD. These traits also stack with the hero traits harvester/saboteur I believe?



This is why most GCD strats I saw involved fast quick domination of any/all weaker neighbors who would fall quickly even if they had knowledge gatherer/dust recycler, and also provided the infrastructure for the necessary massive conquest of the stronger neighbors in similar pattern. Depending on how well this was implemented usually made or broke the mid-endgame for the employer. It also had a nasty habit of uniting other empires against them early compounding the difficulty of quickly overwhelming entrenched enemies who made gains from enemy cp demises.

Keep in mind that Knowledge Gathering, Dust Recyclers, the Sheredyn's new Tech for dust from kills, the Pilot's Harvester ability and the Adventurer's Saboteur ability are all per CP killed not per ship killed. So it doesn't matter if 4 GCDs or 1 Dreadnaught is killed it's still 4 CP worth of bonus from these traits, tech and abilities. Since these battles usually end up with less than 4 GCDs lost per enemy Dreadnaught killed, the GCD player would gain more benefit from these things. Since Knowledge Gathering is the only one that adds science, even if both players took both levels of this trait the GCD player would continue to gain more science from the battle than the Dreadnaught player. At some point just from this the GCD player will end up with a tech advantage that makes it easier for them to kill the dreadnaughts with even fewer losses. Then it just snowballs from there.

Thuvian and I just concluded our second formal testing of Glass Cannon Destroyers (GCD) vs Super Dreadnoughts in the mid game. Please keep in mind that I have 2 levels of Optimal Space (+30% Tonnage) and 3 Levels of Militarists (-30% to Industry Cost) for my ships, and the Amoeba Dreadnought has -30% Tonnage to defense modules. Thuvian can post his faction traits. But in our second game he had 2 levels of Masters of Destruction. In the first game in addition to Masters of Destruction, I believe he had 2 levels of Make Science Not War?



Rules : No battle cards. GCD's should have 1 defense of each. Each Phase 1 Battle will test with new ships on both sides. Ships were level 3. No Leaders.



1st Phase 1 : Thuvian was using an odd harmony faction build, it had 3 levels of spray and pray and 2 levels of wasted space without 3 levels of deadly weapons. I am playing the Amoeba build mentioned previously without eternal war. Phase 1 is limited to a single battle in a turn without multiple fleets.



My Dreadnought was 10/10/11 for Deflectors, Shields and Flak. I had 17 Long Range Kinetic Weapons 1 armor module for +125% hp +20% defense, 1 Repair module for +10% repair, 1 Battle Fighter Squadron, 3 Point Defense Modules, Industry Cost of 1407.6. (Note costs vary about ~50 points due to resource monopolies)



Round 1 : 19 GCD LR Kinetic (145 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. Thuvian estimated he would need ~50 of these to kill the dreadnought. I would only destroy 4 GCD's on the first combat phase and damage some other ships.



Round 2 : 19 GCD Melee Kinetic (175 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. Again kinetics were very ineffective.



Round 3 : 19 GCD Medium Range Beams (155 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. Beams were also very ineffective.



Round 4 : 19 GCD Long Range Missiles (119 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. Missiles were more effective than kinetics and beams. But still not enough to over come the defenses of the dreadnought.



Round 5 : 9 GCD Long Range Missile + 2 Battle Bombers (241 Industry Cost per Ship) was the destruction point for the dreadnought. I could live through 8 of these, but not 9.



Industry Cost Comparison : Excluding the Hybrid Long Range Missile + 2 Battle Bomber GCD's. We have on the low end of 2261 GCD vs 1408 Dreadnought, on the high end we have 3325 Industry Cost for GCD's vs 1408 Dreadnought. Including the Hybrid GCD's we have 2169 Industry Cost to destroy the Dreadnought vs 1408. If you take away Militarists the cost of my Dreadnoughts should be 1830 Industry. It's hard to calculate how much Masters of Destruction and Make Science not War affected the Industry costs of this 1st round of Phase 1 testing without knowing modules.



After this the game crashed and so we started over and Thuvian made some adjustments, he dropped spray and pray and wasted space. My Super Dreadnought cost increased to 1447.



2nd Phase 1 : Results are similar here in terms of my single kinetic dreadnought kills 4 ships in the first battle phase, and only damages ships in the second and third.



Round 1 : 16 GCD Medium Range Beams (167 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. Though this time he did enough to damage to make my health/hull yellow.



Round 2 : 16 GCD Long Range Kinetic (155 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. My hull was green at the end of this battle.



Round 3 : 16 GCD Long Range Missiles (140 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. My hull was yellow after this battle.



Round 4 : 16 GCD Long Range Missiles (103 Industry Cost, no defense modules) vs 1 Dreadnought = Dreadnought lives. My hull was yellow. We also did another battle like this except instead of using T2 LR Missiles he used T1 for an Industry cost of 70 or 71 per ship which had worse combat results than using T2 missiles.



Round 5 : 8 GCD Long Range Missile + 2 Battle Bombers (247 Industry Cost per Ship) was the destruction point for the dreadnought. I could live through 7 of these, but not 8.



Industry Cost Comparison : Excluding the Hybrid Long Range Missile + 2 Battle Bomber GCD's. We have on the low end of 1648 with the pure LRM GCD in round 4 and on the high end 2672 for GCD Medium Range Beams vs a 1447 Dreadnought (1881 if you take away militarists). Including the Hybrid GCD's we have 1976 Industry Cost to destroy the Dreadnought vs 1447 Industry Cost of the Dreadnought.



From these 2 different phase 1's we both agreed that Kinetic and Beams weren't going to cut it for Phase 2 testing or would be rather tedious to test. So we just skipped right to Long Range Missile fleets. In Phase 2 I fill out the fleet cap with 2 Kinetic Dreadnoughts costing 1447 and 2 Beam Dreadnoughts costing 1423. Using the same build above, except there are only 15 or 14 beam weapons. The objective in Phase 2 is to see how many fleets it takes to destroy a super dreadnought fleet.



Phase 2



Round 1 : (16 Fleet Cap : 3 full fleets and 1 half fleet) 56 GCD Long Range Missiles (140 Industry Cost per Ship) vs 4 Dreadnoughts = No Dreadnought losses, near annihilation of the GCD fleets (I believe 3 or 4 GCD ships survived most being from the first fleet battle). I want to say (and Thuvian can correct me if I'm wrong.) that my dreadnoughts were gaining levels at a rate that was reducing and mitigating the damage delivered and so we stopped testing because it didn't seem possible more fleets were going to do what the previous fleets couldn't as the ship level disparity was growing. Industry Cost of GCD Fleets was 7840, Dreadnought Fleet Cost was 5740.



I'll let Thuvian fill in the rest of the details from his side. After round 1 in phase 2 we tested the Long Range Missile + 2 Bomber GCD's fleets which were able to destroy 1 Dreadnought in the first battle with heavy losses of at least 12 on the first phase of combat, not including second and third phases for GCD losses. Second Fleet would kill 2 Dreadnoughts, with 8 losses (not including battle phases 2 or 3) and the Last fleet would finish off the last Dreadnought and the losses would be between 2 and 4 depending on if it is a beam dreadnought or a kinetic dreadnought left alive.



Industry Cost Analysis : 3 full fleets of Hybrid GCD's is 11856 Industry (3952 Industry per fleet) vs 5740. Though to be fair only 2 GCD's fleets are needed if you don't mind waiting till the next turn to finish off the Dreadnought fleet.. First Battle is a ~1440 industry loss for the Dreadnought while a 2964 loss for the GCD's. Second battle is a ~2900 industry loss for dreadnoughts with 1976 loss for GCD's and Third Battle is ~1440 loss for Dreadnought while only 494-988 industry loss for GCD. Worst case scenario for the Dreadnought fleet is it destroys 5434 industry worth of ships for a dreadnought fleet cost of 5740.



Interesting Observations from our Testing :



Point Defense effectiveness are Defense Value based (it seems). A single Kinetic Dreadnought with 4 Point Defense Modules (no fighters) would kill 1 T1 bomber in a battle. A single T1 battle fighter squadron would kill 2 bombers in a battle. If I double the defense of the dreadnought from 10/10/11 to 20/20/22 I would kill 3 bombers in a battle. If I removed the 20/20 from deflectors and shield and put 62 flak defense modules on a dreadnought I would kill 2 bombers in a battle. If I removed all flak and shield modules and put 51 deflectors on a dreadnought I would kill 3 bombers with 4 Point Defense modules. Point Defenses do not provide any defense value to your fleet or ships other than what they shoot down doesn't get to fire on you anymore.



Fighters, despite the wiki article do in fact split their forces against bombers and ships. So if I have 4 fighter squadrons in my fleet, only 2 of them will engage bombers, the other 2 will engage their ships. Each fighter squadron commits itself to a single target. So if your fighter module has 5 fighters, then 5 fighters will engage 1 target. I personally feel this is a bug because fighters are least viable attacking ships. They are most effective attacking other fighters and bombers, and so this 50/50 split doesn't really make sense.



T1 Bombers are actually better than T2 Bombers. Odd I know. But we decided since T2 fighters/bomber tech was the same science cost as the armor we had in the warfare tech tree that we would see how they were. Surprisingly enough the first phase 2 battle we did with Dreadnought Fleet vs Hybrid GCD's, all my ships lived instead of one dying. So that's makes T1 bombers even more valuable in the early game and well worth picking up.



We did more informal testing and had some fun with full techs and heroes. I started out with a level 8 hero, and 4 level 6 dreadnoughts from the first round of phase 2 testing (hero was leveling up on the homeworld) and full techs. These ships had ~30k hit points with 10% health per turn and they were forced to bow to the almighty altar of bombers. The first 20 CP vs 20 GCD CP of the missile/bomber hybrid took down 3 out of 4 of these ships. There just isn't much you can do about that with how the combat system works.



I think the conclusion of this Glass Cannon Destroy vs Super Dreadnought Challenge is that a lot of the damage from Kinetic, Beams, Missiles can be mitigated. But bombers reign supreme. Especially the T1 bomber vs T2. Still GCD's generally don't have level advantages, where as Super Dreadnoughts usually will and this could possibly play an important role depending on your faction traits and tech. It is also possible that battle cards would shake things up a bit here in our testing. Afterall they can be decisive in picking a winner and loser in battle and I have no doubt that it could be the case here.



Well that's all that I have for now.

Nice results!

So bombers are the effective counter to defense as they are advertised. And from the costs etc, it appears bomber GCDs will be taken down by non-bomber GCDs. Appear rock, paper, scissors to me, which is good.

because missiles and bombers seem to be the most effective, have you tried to focus primarily on defending against those? also, could you test a glasd cannon fleet against a mid game sheredyn invasion fleet with no defences? just want to know how vulnerable those are when they retreat. although offensive retreat may put the attacker off.

The only way to defend against Bombers is Fighters or Point Defense. You can only have as many of those as your ships have special slots. There aren't any other options for defense. Once you have those maxed, you pretty much can't do anything about them.



Omnidefense is a necessity against GCDs. If you focus on one type of defense (e.g., missiles) then the GCD player just switches to using the attack you aren't defending against (e.g., kinetics). Missiles are the classic GCD weapon because they are unstoppable. Nothing can stop the launching of long range missiles and the only defense is either flak modules or retreating before they hit. If you retreat, you've effectively lost, so you are left with flak modules. It doesn't matter if you kill any of the GCDs because they have already fired their missiles, they are ultimately expendable and have already done their jobs.



Any defenseless fleet will be destroyed by a GCD Long Range Kinetic fleet before they can retreat.

It is possible that I could tweak the dreadnought design some to either support more fighters and/or more health to mitigate / soak up the damage of bombers/missiles. But that will probably require a slight reduction in defense modules for kinetics and beams, and a significant reduction of offense modules. Which I feel defeats the point, while my ships are not offensive juggernauts, they still have enough power to do some damage and enough defense to live/last in most circumstances. Then again bombers are very effective, and cheaper than fighters, so perhaps they are the better choice when deciding on the Fighters / Point Defenses question?



I'll have to think about that some and maybe play around with designing a ship to do that.



EDIT BELOW HERE.

Example :



Beam Dreadnought : 10/10/10 Defenses, 10 Medium Range Beams, 2 Armor Modules, 1 Repair, 1 Tonnage, 2 Battle Bombers, 2 Point Defenses. Total HP: 15660 / 1566 healed a Turn. Industry Cost 1554.



Kinetic Dreadnought : 10/10/10 Defenses, 16 Melee Range Kinetics, 2 Armor Modules, 1 Repair, 1 Tonnage, 2 Battle Bombers, 2 Point Defenses. Total HP: 15660 / 1566 healed a Turn. Industry Cost 1587.



I think it may need to be tested to be honest.

great stuff guys, now I can gladly use T1 Bombers without thinking I'm making a strategical error.



I've had heard T1 Bombers are terrible compared to higher Tiers, this always baffled me as statwise T2's appeared actually less usefull imho.



However: The actual Title of the thread seems to have been confirmed. With the progressive Tonnage cost of the Powermodule thier usefullness outside of Corvettes stacking their Fleet bonuses seems really to be nonexistent.

I think we need some VIP's to work with the Dev's to make some sticky posts/locked threads where information about combat mechanics and theory crafting examples can be referenced in cases like this. Take a look at this thread.



/#/endless-space/forum/27-general/thread/10579-the-battle-of-cheng-multiplayer-harmony-battle-bug



TLDR version of that thread. 17 kinetic defense modules beat 230 Kinetic Weapon Modules, because the defense combat formula can negate 98% of kinetic damage.



To give an example of a design I think would be highly effective turning most theory crafting on it's head the Harmony have a cruiser that has -50% tonnage for defense modules, you can easily do a 10/10/10 build of defense modules (You could get away with 5-8 on flak I think) on this hull without much tonnage usage, add armor for +175% HP's and +30% defense for 4200 HP, add Intelligent Hulls for +2% Repair x 12 Cruisers (assuming 24 fleet cap) for 1008 HP repaired per battle phase without consideration to ship experience which also increases base HP, or tactics cards that improve either HP or repair values. The only downside is the Hull weakness of x2 on the cruiser. It may not be the most effective killer, but it would be a difficult fleet to kill and with the right fleet make up in regards to weapon modules, you could probably beat any other fleet in the game.



The Amoeba have a similar ship in the Dreadnaught class that is -30% to defense module tonnage. So you could do a similar build as well.

Yeah i would say on larger Ships they are mostly useless , maybe its worth on small ships like Corvets and Destroyers which are using mainly missles.



btw : Does the bonus from the Modul which boosts the entire Fleet apply only once or does it apply for each single ship so 10 Ships with the modul = + 50% Weapon Damage ?

Yes you're right! power modules are good for corvettas, according to my calculation from previous post if we put the same weapons on corvetta then we get the following:

with power module: 1767 min/max damage

without PM (but more weapons) 1350 min/max damage!

Nice catch, I missed that because didn't see that power module actually takes 20% of ship hull not fixed 44 tonnage

Sovereign wrote:
btw : Does the bonus from the Modul which boosts the entire Fleet apply only once or does it apply for each single ship so 10 Ships with the modul = + 50% Weapon Damage ?

Good question, the earliest power module that boost's whole fleet gives following:

5% boost to damage

8% critic chance on all fleet weapons

8% boost to all fleet defenses



I don't know if that bonus stacks on multiple ships within a fleet if every ship within a fleet have that module but it's obvious that this strategy would be bad because such fleet to really benefit from that bonus would consist only from small hulls.

So conclusion is self explanatory:

create a fleet ie. with 5 big ships fully loaded with weapons and one small ship that will carry

the power module and boost big ships, cool

codekiddy wrote:
Yes you're right! power modules are good for corvettas, according to my calculation from previous post if we put the same weapons on corvetta then we get the following:

with power module: 1767 min/max damage

without PM (but more weapons) 1350 min/max damage!

Nice catch, I missed that because didn't see that power module actually takes 20% of ship hull not fixed 44 tonnage





Good question, the earliest power module that boost's whole fleet gives following:

5% boost to damage

8% critic chance on all fleet weapons

8% boost to all fleet defenses



I don't know if that bonus stacks on multiple ships within a fleet if every ship within a fleet have that module but it's obvious that this strategy would be bad because such fleet to really benefit from that bonus would consist only from small hulls.

So conclusion is self explanatory:

create a fleet ie. with 5 big ships fully loaded with weapons and one small ship that will carry

the power module and boost big ships, cool

Well as i see that if the bonus would stack it could be quite powerfull (maybe even overpowered?)

Power Modules boost weapon damage by a percentage, which means it scales by hull size. Furthermore, this is independent of weapon rank, size or type, a 30% boost increases the damage by 30% regardless of all of that. This means that we can use algebra to find the break point sizes. The point at which a ship investing into weapon modules and a power module does the same damage as one that invests into only weapon modules.



#Power Module Data

#level weight cost Damage Defense Crit

#1 .20 16 .30 0 0

#2 .20 24 .35 .15 0

#3 .20 120 .45 .20 .15

#4 .20 340 .05 .05 .05 #fleet

#5 .20 540 .10 .08 .08 #fleet

#6 .20 1300 .15 .10 .10 #fleet



Caveat

This assumes that the equivalent number of shots land. This is true for beams, but false for missiles and kinetics due to the secondary effects of the defenses. Flak and armor defenses block a certain number of shots, whereas shields block a certain amount of damage. Power Modules work by reducing the number of weapons and shots fired, but increasing the damage each does. Because Flak and Armor block the same number of shots, regardless of the type of ship shooting, the higher damage but fewer shots from the Power Module ships will be reduced more than the shots from pure Weapon Module ships. For kinetics the reduction is rather trivial due to the low damage and massive number of shots. In contrast, it makes a larger difference to missiles because of how heavy missiles are and how few you can fit onto a ship.



The break points can be calculated as follows:

Calculation for Power Module Break Points



Weight in Pure weapons = (Weight in Weapons Minus Power Module Weight) * Power Module Bonus

(x-0)*1 = (x - .2 ) * y

x = (x - .2) * y

x = xy - .2y

x - xy = -.2y

x * (1 - y) = -.2y

x = -.2y / (1 - y)



Substitute y for each Rank of Power module and solve for x.

y = 1.30

y = 1.35

y = 1.45



Example for Rank 1

x = (-0.2 * 1.30)/(1-1.30)

x = -0.26 / -.23

x = 0.8667



86.67% of the ship needs to be weapon and power modules. The power module is 20% of weight, so 66.67% of the ship has to be weapon modules.



Percent of Ship Weight spent on Weapons for Power Module Break Points

• Rank 1 66.67%
• Rank 2 57.14%
• Rank 3 44.44% **This does not include the critical hit bonus or the defense module bonus
  
  

Here's a picture to help. The black line is how strong a ship would be with a certain proportion of ship's weight in weapons. The red, blue, and purple lines represent the Rank 1-3 Power Modules. The circles are the breakpoints. Anything above the black line is a situation that Power Modules are more effective (given the previous limitations) and below the black line Power Modules are less effective.







These values only hold for ships that do not have bonuses for Weapon or Power Modules. Additionally, the effect of other Rank 3 Bonuses for Critical Hit and Defense are not calculated. It looks like the Critical Hit Bonus is 15% more likely to have a critical hit. I believe that weapons in Disharmony 1.1.37 do 200% damage on a critical hit, but I don't know the chance to have a critical. I believe there are also additional ways of increasing it, (e.g., via heroes). This is a multiplicative increase, so if your base is 5%, it would increase to 5.75% (= 5 * 1.15). The Defense Module Bonus should also be taken into consideration, as an additional bonus to the ship's combat worth.



Another factor to consider is the cost of the Power Module. Power Modules are increasingly expensive. At the extreme end is the Rank 6 Power Module costing 3400 Industry. That's the price of 40 cheap glass cannon destroyers. The worth of the module would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The larger the hull, the more equivalent weapons a Power Module is worth, and is therefore more cost effective on larger hulls. I would most likely argue that the Rank 6 Power Module should only be deployed on dreadnoughts. Some quick Math



24 CP, 4 CP per dreadnought = 6 Dreadnought max (depends on tech and racials).

1.15 Damage bonus (per rank 6 module) ^ 6 ships = 231% Bonus (I believe it is 1.15^6 and not 1 + (.15)*6)

So a max dreadnought fleet, each with 1 rank 6 module, would roughly double the weapon effectiveness the fleet carries. Of course, once you start taking losses the firepower of the fleet diminishes significantly.



I'm pretty sure the Fleet Bonuses for Power Modules 4-6 are cumulative. There was a similar error in the early versions (~1.1.17) where one of the siege module bonuses was fleet wide. You could achieve truly horrendous (100K+) siege values with early game destroyers.

Power, Engines, Armor and Repair modules all take a percentage of the ships tonnage in Disharmony instead of a flat amount. This makes them virtually worthless on the larger ships unless that ship has a weight reduction modifier for one of them. With an exception, If making a larger ship into a troop transporter, I'd still put in a the repair module with the highest module regeneration bonus just to regrow the troops faster. Unless you have at least 4 of these ships in the fleet the Intelligent tools would be the best option, because it's +.3 regen in all areas.



Also keep in mind, that all the tech that boost ship tonnage will increase the weight of these 4 modules. Likewise adding the tonnage module will further increase their weight. The only good thing about this is it makes the Wasted Space trait better than the Optimal Structure trait if you plan to use a lot of these 4 modules.



Out of those 4 modules, armor is the only one that doesn't have a fleet wide bonus for the higher tier versions. So armor pretty much never worth it, even on the small ships.

At the extreme end is the Rank 6 Power Module costing 3400 Industry

I'm currently in my latest Harmony game and that modules shows to only cost 260 industry with the Make Science not War trait, so 520 industry normally. So it would be well worth it to put on the 1 CP ships. Thus with 24 CP capacity that's 24 of these modules for a boost of +360% damage. Depending on tonnage boosts, the weight on the 1 CP ships is only about 2-3 LRK.