Usefulness of the bigger mounts

[Alneyan]

While designing a few Light Carriers, something stroke me when doing a small calculation about the compared efficiency of the Heavy and Massive Mounts. Here are the increases in damage compared to the previous mount:
- Large Mount compared to no mount: +33% damage for the same space.
- Heavy Mount compared to Large Mount: +12,5% damage for the same space.
- Massive Mount compared to Heavy Mount: +11,5% damage for the same space.

So, while the Heavy and Massive Mounts do increase damage a bit, is it really a good idea to have fewer, albeit stronger and bigger, weapons? It will make them more likely to get hit instead of, say, these Fighters Bays when speaking of a Light Carrier, or other less critical parts of the ship.

Besides, if the chances to hit the enemy ships are not impressive, I guess you would want to have as many hits as possible, rather than the occasional hit dealing a lot of damage. The only reason why you would want to deal as much damage in a single blow would be against a Crystalline Empire I guess, given the properties of their armour.

So, am I missing something obvious, or are these Heavy Mounts (and Massive Mounts as well, although these are much less common) bittersweet? Or am I merely worrying a bit too much about my beloved Light Carriers?

[Slick]

It's almost always best to use the biggest mount you can. Test your designs in the simulator head-to-head, one with mounts and the other without and see what happens. Also, don't just set up 1 vs. 1; use fleets vs fleets too. I am sure the mount ships will be wiping the floor with the unmounted ships.

Slick.

[geoschmo]

Bigger is almost always better in SEIV.

While the larger size might make the weapons have a slightly better chance to be hit, the higher damage per shot means you are taking out several components at a time. This increases your chances of scoring a "critical hit" on any particular shot, taking out their bridge, life support or sensors.

[Alneyan]

That's a good point Geo, I did forget that while your wepaons are a bit more exposed, so the enemy ship is more vulnerable as well. I guess I will keep on using these Heavy Mounts, even if they don't improve this much a given weapon. (At least compared to the Large Mounts)

I will likely run a few tests in the simulator to see what happens with Large Mounts against Heavy Mounts, so as to check if there is much of a difference in this kind of setting. But I gather that all else being equal, the results will be linked to luck and to the varying AI behaviour. Thanks for the answers!

[Karibu]

Of course, some special weapons are not worth of using heavy or massive mounts. For example computer virus and crew subverter. Computer virus 3 makes 60 damage to master computer at normal mount. It means that it would destroy 3 master computers at one shot. Nobody puts 4 master computers in same ship.

IIRC Crew subverter 3 receives its max damage in heavy mount (120 if I do not remember it wrong), which means that its chance to convert enemy ships is 120%. No need to use bigger percents of greater mounts.

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Karibu:
Of course, some special weapons are not worth of using heavy or massive mounts. For example computer virus and crew subverter. Computer virus 3 makes 60 damage to master computer at normal mount. It means that it would destroy 3 master computers at one shot. Nobody puts 4 master computers in same ship.

IIRC Crew subverter 3 receives its max damage in heavy mount (120 if I do not remember it wrong), which means that its chance to convert enemy ships is 120%. No need to use bigger percents of greater mounts.

The larger mounts give a longer range. The added range can be very important.