mathematical formulaes

[Phoenix-D]

Keep in mnd that the formulas can't cover everything. I haven't seen one take the WMG's to-hit bonus into account, and only some acknolage the smashing ability of larger weapons. Damage over time is irrelevant if the enemy's first shot blows you up. Otherwise Rocket Pods would be fairly crappy weapons, when they're actually decent ones.

Range: it varies on situation. Warp Point assults tend to have a different style than open-space battles. (this is why I love Ripper-Beam armed sats)

Phoenix-D

[Hank]

Originally posted by tbontob:
OK, I figured out that

(trade-received)*(100/trade-percent)- is the formuala for determining an opponents production of minerals, organics, radioactives, research points and intelligence points.

Having a trade relationship with more than one race will of course screw it up.

From my observations, the trade calculation determines the base rate of production before trade. The base rate is useful for a number of things, for example you can determine how much an opponent is relying on trade to finance their empire. As far as I know, a trade relationship adds onto that base rate and does not get "re-traded".

[Taera]

it doesnt. but this is when political savvy gets involved.
What yes, you can learn abour their base production. If you see that what they use surpasses it you can check the treaty grid and look around for remote mining ships/bases/sats from that empire.

[Dralasite]

You could do an average of the hit rate over all the ranges (from 0-20) to get a number to compare range and accuracy. But seekers would probably come out looking better than they are. Also it doesn't account for the first-shot-kill, firing strategies, etc.

[Suicide Junkie]

From my observations, the trade calculation determines the base rate of production before trade.

Oh, MY! If the trade profits INCLUDED trade from others too, you'd be instantly filty rich!

Trading with 5 equally sized empires gets you 100% more resources (20% from each).
But since you trade after trade income, you should be giving twice as much as we originally thought.
Everybody gets 200% more resources instead.
But since you trade after trade income, should be giving three times as much as originally thought.
Everybody gets 300%...
Infinite resources, get your infinite resources here!

You could do an average of the hit rate over all the ranges (from 0-20) to get a number to compare range and accuracy. But seekers would probably come out looking better than they are. Also it doesn't account for the first-shot-kill, firing strategies, etc.

Also, it will be totally thrown out of whack by combat sensors, ECM and other accuracy modifiers...

[ December 26, 2002, 15:38: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Dralasite]

Combat sensors/ecm/etc. all have the same effect on any direct fire weapon, right? So it would simplify things to ignore them.

Seekers don't really fit into the formula anyway. Their classication is in many ways more like a drone, because you have to take into account the target and attacker speeds, pdc, and other junk.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Taera:
lets see.

ripper: 50/(20*1) = 50/20 = 5/2
incentrator: 90/(50*2) = 90/100 = 9/10
WMG: 140/(70*3) = 140/210 = 2/3

Interesting. Basicly same results as my formula.
Guess it doesnt matter that much.

Shouldnt range be included somewhere?
Anyone with a good formula?
perharps dmg/(si*rof)*range?

Range should be included, yes. How to do this, and accurately reflect thebenefits of range, is difficult to do, however.

I presume people here are looking at :damage at maximum range", especially in the caseof weapons which attenuate.

I suggest -- find the average damage the weapon does, instead. So if a gin does "30 30 20 10 10" ... the damage portion of the formula should be 20, not 30 and not 10.

Run your calculation as normal.

Then, for my art at least, I multiply the result by "1 + (range / 10)"; this accounts for the small bonus one gets from a larger range (a range 8 weapon, versus a range 6 weapon, will get a 20% boost to it's "usefulness index" if you will).

[Dralasite]

OK, how about

average over distance d = 0 to 20 of (chance to hit at range d * damage at range d)

for direct fire only (not counting combat sensors, ecm, race bonus, etc.). One problemo would be that it favors longer range weapons, which wouldn't make sense if you are using a "point blank" style strategy.

So back to the drawing board. On the other hand, I'm happy that SEIV can't be reduced to some simple formulas

[Fyron]

Originally posted by tbontob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it would be bad. ROF is how many turns it takes to recharge and fire the gun. 1 means it can fire every turn, 2 means it fires every other turn, 3 every 3rd turn, and so on.

Quite right.

Bringing the divisor up to the numerator changes it, from rol to 1/rol.

So a better way of putting it may be...
damage/(size*rol)

---

The formula is not x/(y/z), which would indead come out to x*z/y. The formula is (x/y)/z.
___

No one ever said the forumla was the end-all, beat-all. Of course range and other factors influence the usefulness of a weapon. But, the raw damage is the primary factor when determining the strength of a weapon. All the formula does is to create a base from which to compare weapons of different sizes and rates of fire.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tbontob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it would be bad. ROF is how many turns it takes to recharge and fire the gun. 1 means it can fire every turn, 2 means it fires every other turn, 3 every 3rd turn, and so on.

Quite right.

Bringing the divisor up to the numerator changes it, from rol to 1/rol.

So a better way of putting it may be...
damage/(size*rol)

---

The formula is not x/(y/z), which would indead come out to x*z/y. The formula is (x/y)/z.
___

No one ever said the forumla was the end-all, beat-all. Of course range and other factors influence the usefulness of a weapon. But, the raw damage is the primary factor when determining the strength of a weapon. All the formula does is to create a base from which to compare weapons of different sizes and rates of fire.

---

Fyron, I think you got things a bit mixed up.

I did not say the formula was x/(y/z). In the terms you have used, the formula I gave would be x/(y*z) which is something completely different from x/(y/z).

Also (x/y)/z is the same as x/y/z.

x/y/z =(x/y)/z = (x/y)/(z/1) = (x/y)*(1/z) = x/(y*z) which is the formula I gave above.

Now x/(y*z) is not earth-shattering. It is just that it is usually easier to multiply rather than divide. Which is why I gave the formula as x/(y*z) and for no other reason.

And yes, I agree with you that the formula is not a all-encompassing method of comparing weapons.

If one uses it only as a quick and dirty way to compare weapons, it can be useful. But we should keep in mind that it is only one way of comparing the relative strengths of weapons and therefor is not to be relied upon as the "method" of definitively ranking the value of weapons since other factors which are not reflected in the formula (such as range), can have a major impact on the value of a weapon.