WhiteWeasel wrote:
True, but if you fail to take out your opponents by mid game, you'll be playing a game of can't catch up. My deadly weapons 3 + optimal structure 2 can make up for the lack of an early advantage.

Drop the optimal structure 2 and you can add the 3rd scientists and kitchen chemists.

you can always counter an offensive retreat

On the topic of long range versus melee range weapons; in a multiplayer game can a player with a long range fleet abuse the fact that an enemy has a melee range fleet by doing an offensive retreat in the long or medium range phase?



Also I'm playing on 'serious', does the AI buy the extra tonnage which costs a shit load of industry? That would really explain why their 2CP ships can somehow carry 400 military strength worth of each defense type plus 200 strength worth of all 3 weapon types. If all the AI does with its resource bonus is make ridiculously stronger ships with industry then I'm very disappointed.

I don't think it's fair to base an argument against Optimal Structures by using the lowest tonnage hull and a glass cannon design. Typically in my games I use the extra space for a little more defense since there is a balance to be had in killing power and survival. Ships I don't have to rebuild are more ships for me to use to express my influence.

agreed, the main purpose of OS is to make Fleets more effective and add survivability, when you go for massed GCDs- Large fleets or militarists is the Thing* you want.





*lol german autocorrect recognises the word "Thing" and capitalizes it. Sometimes the Spellcheck surprises me with it's education

Monthar wrote:
Optimal structure does not equal military oriented,

In Endless Space what good is Optimal Structures besides military? Does anyone build colony ships with more than 1 colony module? That's about the only use I could see for Optimal Structures in a non-military capacity. Otherwise that extra space is always used for making your military ships better?

Monthar wrote:
it just means you gain space for about 3 extra weapons on your GCDs,

I don't think it's fair to base an argument against Optimal Structures by using the lowest tonnage hull and a glass cannon design. Typically in my games I use the extra space for a little more defense since there is a balance to be had in killing power and survival. Ships I don't have to rebuild are more ships for me to use to express my influence.

Monthar wrote:
while also increasing the tonnage of engine, repair, armor and power modules. So if you ever put one of those 4 modules on a design with optimal structure the increased tonnage of them means you'd be lucky to add 1 extra weapon.

The percentage is 20% for engine, repair, power, and 15% for armor. Base Destroyer Hull with 1 armor module is 15 tons, leaving 85 free. Optimal Structure Destroyer Hull with 1 armor module is 20 tons, leaving 110 free. So for 30 points more hull I spend 5 more than you would on the same component.

Ca_Putt wrote:
When the "brake even" point is reached also depends on your affinity/strategy. if you grab those arctics relatively early, the Scientists bonus kicks a lot earlier than when you stick to T2 Planets, especially Arids. So a Horatio like Faction will benefit longer from KC than a Sophons based one.

I usually choose lava over arctics, so the break even point would have been earlier.

When the "brake even" point is reached also depends on your affinity/strategy. if you grab those arctics relatively early, the Scientists bonus kicks a lot earlier than when you stick to T2 Planets, especially Arids. So a Horatio like Faction will benefit longer from KC than a Sophons based one.

WhiteWeasel wrote:
NO. How many times do I have to say it? It's military oriented faction, I can't drop that. Plus as for the playable version, dropping optimal structure will only give me kitchen chemists.

1. Usually Scientists > Kitchen Chemistry

2. Early Game: Kitchen Chemistry > Scientist (But not not worth to pick it lonely (20 Points) IMO when u pick Kitchen Chemistry u have to pick Scientists and or Efficient Stock too)





PS: Dropping Optimal Structure 2 isent that of a big deal cause Optimal Structure 1 is way more crucial then the second rank.

Monthar wrote:
-snip-

My bad, I never use kinetics as my main weapon. Usually, beams as my main, ans a few LR/MR kinetics or normal missiles on the side. Being able to go from 3 to 7 beams is more than a 50% increase, without having to take off any defense modules. By itself, it does not sound like much, but it adds up with larger ship hulls and the fleet as a whole. Optimal structure is non-negotiable. I won't drop it for a another science trait. My faction isn't a science focused one. If it was, I would have gone with the sophons affinity.







Also I'm not resorting to glass cannons for my main fleet composition. Your ships are guaranteed to die, the whole kill them before they kill you does not work because it does not stop them from taking any shots at you in the process.





EDIT: To stop the thread form getting derailed any further, If you want to discuss the dramaturgy of my faction, and the reasons I chose it's traits, please do it on the thread about said faction. /#/endless-space/forum/38-creations/thread/16457-faction-arhulians-of-dusk-wip. After about a year of playing the same faction, with 4 different affinities, the traits are more or less finalized.

First off, melee kinetics is far less damage than long range kinetics. Yes, it's more shots, but at only 1 damage per shot. Long range kinetics is fewer shots at 3 damage per shot, but the total damage output is more than the same tonnage spent on melee kinetics. The tier 2 long range kinetics weigh 10 tons each, so on a 100 ton ship with +30% tonnage from optimal structure is only 3 more of these.



Also consider this, at medium and long range those melee kinetics only deal half damage. So 0.5 damage instead of 1 making your +36% damage drop from 1.36 to 0.68. With LRKs that 3 damage + 36% comes to 4.08 per shot in first phase of the battle, which is also the most important phase.



With those 12 melee kinetics you'd get 60 shots each at 0.68 damage in the first two phases of the battle and 1.36 damage per shot in the last phase. That's a total of 720 shots per round. There are 4 round per phase for total damages of 489.6x4=1958.4 in long, 489.6x4=1958.4 in medium and 979.2x4=3916 in melee, for a total damage output of 7832.8 for a battle that makes it to the melee phase.



If you change those to long range kinetics instead of melee you can only fit 6 of them with the same 10 deflectors. Those 6 all fire 25 shots at 4.08 per shot with deadly weapons 3. That's 150 shots per round for 612x4=2448 damage in the long, 306x4=1224 in the medium and melee 306x4=1224 for a total damage output of 4896 for the battle. Yes, that's only 62.51% of the total damage the melee kinetics can put out if the battle goes to the melee phase. However, since half the total damage is in the long range phase it's unlikely you'd even get to the melee range. If both versions only get to the medium range now it's only 3916.8 vs 3672 making the LRK version put out 93.75% of the damage of the melee version. If you can kill off the entire enemy fleet in the long range phase it's 2448 vs 1958.4 making the LRK version deal 125% of the damage the melee version can.



Since the LRK's can outperform the equivalent tonnage of MelRK (melee range kinetics) and the tier 1 LRK (long range kinetics) have the same tonnage as the tier 1 deflector you can drop the number of deflectors to increase the number of LRK's and practically ensure you kill the enemy ships in the long range phase, thus there's no need to be "tanky".

Monthar wrote:
That's right it's only 20 points for both levels of optimal structure. Optimal structure does not equal military oriented, it just means you gain space for about 3 extra weapons on your GCDs, while also increasing the tonnage of engine, repair, armor and power modules. So if you ever put one of those 4 modules on a design with optimal structure the increased tonnage of them means you'd be lucky to add 1 extra weapon.



However, with the increased science from having both Kitchen Chemists and Scientists 2, you'd get the increased fleet cap techs, tonnage increasing techs and the higher tier weapons faster.

Maybe I should get KC plus Scientists. I will let me research A-Entropic weapons faster, because that's what it's going to take to get through to you people.



This lets my fleet become incredibly dangerous because I can build my ships to be tanks to everyone else, but without sacrificing firepower due to the extra 30% space. BTW, That does not look like three weapon modules.

Normal, "tanky" ship.



Still tanky, but double the firepower on top of the 36% extra damage.

That's right it's only 20 points for both levels of optimal structure. Optimal structure does not equal military oriented, it just means you gain space for about 3 extra weapons on your GCDs, while also increasing the tonnage of engine, repair, armor and power modules. So if you ever put one of those 4 modules on a design with optimal structure the increased tonnage of them means you'd be lucky to add 1 extra weapon.



However, with the increased science from having both Kitchen Chemists and Scientists 2, you'd get the increased fleet cap techs, tonnage increasing techs and the higher tier weapons faster.

Monthar wrote:
Drop the optimal structure 2 and you can add the 3rd scientists and kitchen chemists.

NO. How many times do I have to say it? It's military oriented faction, I can't drop that. Plus as for the playable version, dropping optimal structure will only give me kitchen chemists.

WhiteWeasel wrote:
Again, this is about the choice of one over the other, not both.

Just a simple question, since they are the same amount of points, which one is better and in what situation? I think scientists would be a better long run trait. I could also see a similar trend with other % vs per pop bonuses as well.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
i know horatio arn't the best with dust but you are quite poor. also spendthrifts are very bad late game unless you have a faction with a good advantage in another section. compared to other victories, economic is very easy to get early..

I don't do economic victories, usually diplomacy or expansion. So far my faction (minus the cloning for the playable version) has done pretty well with the automatons, amoeba, horatio, and hissho affinity. Masters of destruction is a bit redundant. Maybe dust recyclers 2 since my fleets are really powerful, curbstomping, or at least the opponent taking noticeably more damage than mine in most engagements. And the scientists break though to the next tier of weapons before others.

i know horatio arn't the best with dust but you are quite poor. also spendthrifts are very bad late game unless you have a faction with a good advantage in another section. compared to other victories, economic is very easy to get early..

3vilTwin wrote:
That's nice info. I've been taking Scientists 2/3, but if Kitchen Chemists can give an early advantage, that would trump a late gain IMO. Early tech can help wipe the enemy out before they have a chance to respond. I'll have to reconfigure my races.

True, but if you fail to take out your opponents by mid game, you'll be playing a game of can't catch up. My deadly weapons 3 + optimal structure 2 can make up for the lack of an early advantage. Plus Kitchen chemists better benefits factions with fast opulation: growth. For the faction I'm using, It has horatio affinity, KC, and crowded planets as relevant traits. Medium galaxy, with many/smaller systems I'm a military focused faction, so there were less science planetary improvements. Evidence to prove I'm not forging my information: http://imgur.com/a/KQUjN#0







-As we see from this image, at turn 35 I have 26 opulation:, therefore 26 . Minus that form the pool and it's a base of 52. If I had Scientists 2 instead of KC, I'd only get 10.4

-At turn 69, We have base of 287, with KC, that's plus 80 , and with scientists 2, 73.4. So both are even at mid game.

-At turn 137, we got a base of 2440, with KC, 2732. Now with scientists 2, we get 488 , almost a 60% increase. So it is true that KC is better for early rushers, and scientists 2 is better for long run empires.



EDIT: I just realized, that all helium system has more science then my entire empire in this game.

That's nice info. I've been taking Scientists 2/3, but if Kitchen Chemists can give an early advantage, that would trump a late gain IMO. Early tech can help wipe the enemy out before they have a chance to respond. I'll have to reconfigure my races.

Nxf7 wrote:
Each to their own. I was responding to your statement "Having both would be redundant", which is wrong from a min/max standpoint, at least until (if) they balance the traits a bit better.

I meant min/maxing as in taking a bunch of little weaknesses to get a bunch of trait points. I try to make my custom factions stockalike

(but of course having a certain focus military or diplomacy) by having a few traits in other areas other than their specialty. I.E. I would not make a faction that has only fleet and spacebattle traits. As well as limiting the number of weakness I have. Bar the Automatons, the stock factions have no more than two three maluses. Even if they are minor, having a faction with 5+ maluses just looks unprofessional.

Each to their own. I was responding to your statement "Having both would be redundant", which is wrong from a min/max standpoint, at least until (if) they balance the traits a bit better.