From The Depths - Forum

Full Version: Buff CRAMs!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(2018-05-26, 07:12 AM)Gladyon Wrote: [ -> ]CRAM do have one recent advantage: bombs.
The bomb chute has been fixed, so it now has a lot of advantages:
- no recoil
- nearly undetectable, so LAMS will have nearly no time to react
- very precise (you can even make it less precise if you want to spread a bit the bombs)
- do not explode at launch anymore (if the bomb chute mouth is free of course)

CRAM bombers can be devastating now.

LAMS can take out quite a few bombs in my experience.
Ships more too jittery to actually hit, and ammo decoys and bad target choice make them hard to use. My bomber at 200m altitude misses the Bulwark consistently.
(2018-05-27, 03:45 AM)MizarLuke Wrote: [ -> ]
(2018-05-26, 07:12 AM)Gladyon Wrote: [ -> ]CRAM do have one recent advantage: bombs.
The bomb chute has been fixed, so it now has a lot of advantages:
- no recoil
- nearly undetectable, so LAMS will have nearly no time to react
- very precise (you can even make it less precise if you want to spread a bit the bombs)
- do not explode at launch anymore (if the bomb chute mouth is free of course)

CRAM bombers can be devastating now.

LAMS can take out quite a few bombs in my experience.
Ships more too jittery to actually hit, and ammo decoys and bad target choice make them hard to use. My bomber at 200m altitude misses the Bulwark consistently.

Have you tried since I fixed the bomb chutes?
I drastically reduced detection range for CRAM bombs (80% or 90%, I don't remember).

Try this bomber against the Bulwark.
You need to start it at about 2Km from the target, altitude about 500m and facing away from the target. That way both vehicles do have the time to get to their cruise speed and altitude.[attachment=50605]
I haven't optimized the bomb chutes (I should add a little inaccuracy to them so they would hit more often), but they are efficient enough to kill a Bulwark in 3-4 bomb runs.

The Iron should be able to dispatch a Thyr in 4-5 bomb runs, depending on the first ones (after a few hits, the Thyr begin to slow down, and from that point it cannot survive more than 3 bomb runs).
But for that you would need to modify the AimPoint cards, so they don't target the mainframes and ammo (the Iron has been designed to work with ProtecTech Industries, so the Aimpoint should in fact target the weapons).

If you want to attack faster ships, you would need to increase the dispersal for the bombs, so you'll increase the chances that a few bombs hit, while reducing the chances that all the bombs hit...

Fun fact about that bomber, it is more vulnerable to CRAM than APS.
That's because CRAM may go higher than the plane and hit it on the roof, instantly killing all its AIs...


I have other bombers, a lot smaller, their problem is the number of bombs, against a large ship with all the LAMS concentrated on only a few bombs they usually never hit.
You can still try these ones:[attachment=50606][attachment=50607]
Note that the Diopside is using motor barrels and not bomb chutes, I haven't taken the time to change it.
Also, considering the cost of these small bombers, you can spawn 2-3 against a Bulwark and still be very cost-effective.
I destroyed a Bulwark with 3 Crystals pretty fast, they are surprisingly precise bombers, removing 2-4% each bomb run.
(2018-05-26, 04:03 PM)Fernir Wrote: [ -> ]Gladyon I meant how they blow up when destroyed.

Oh, yeah, there may be a bug there, I have the impression that the shell just disappear without exploding.
If the LAMS can detonate a shell 0.1m from the ship there's no damage, which is quite frustrating...
I'll probably take a look at it someday.
while we´re at the subject of crams, would it be possible to add a button that evenly distributes materials across crams sharing the same pellet box through autoloaders? i Think this would be counterintuitive if it worked for 6 ways as well, but for loaders its totally fair since they require you to lay things out.
(2018-05-27, 07:08 PM)Gladyon Wrote: [ -> ]
(2018-05-26, 04:03 PM)Fernir Wrote: [ -> ]Gladyon I meant how they blow up when destroyed.

Oh, yeah, there may be a bug there, I have the impression that the shell just disappear without exploding.
If the LAMS can detonate a shell 0.1m from the ship there's no damage, which is quite frustrating...
I'll probably take a look at it someday.

Oh those cursed misunderstandings.
I meant gun systems being damaged. I had ship that due to bad placement of secondary guns could have its front almost cut of by turret chain detonating (before explosions fix thou) all were APS.
(2018-05-27, 09:27 PM)Fernir Wrote: [ -> ]
(2018-05-27, 07:08 PM)Gladyon Wrote: [ -> ]
(2018-05-26, 04:03 PM)Fernir Wrote: [ -> ]Gladyon I meant how they blow up when destroyed.

Oh, yeah, there may be a bug there, I have the impression that the shell just disappear without exploding.
If the LAMS can detonate a shell 0.1m from the ship there's no damage, which is quite frustrating...
I'll probably take a look at it someday.

Oh those cursed misunderstandings.
Sorry for being a bit slow Wink


(2018-05-27, 09:27 PM)Fernir Wrote: [ -> ]I meant gun systems being damaged. I had ship that due to bad placement of secondary guns could have its front almost cut of by turret chain detonating (before explosions fix thou) all were APS.
Yeah, CRAM are safer, but now that you can add ammo ejectors and emergency ejection defuse part shell you can achieve nearly the same level of safety with APS.
Of course, to achieve that safety with APS it requires more building, more cost, and less RPM for the same volume or cost.
(2018-05-27, 09:10 PM)Char_charodon Wrote: [ -> ]while we´re at the subject of crams, would it be possible to add a button that evenly distributes materials across crams sharing the same pellet box through autoloaders? i Think this would be counterintuitive if it worked for 6 ways as well, but for loaders its totally fair since they require you to lay things out.

I'm not sure I understand exactly.
Are you saying that some CRAM components can be shared among several CRAM firing pieces?
(2018-05-28, 08:17 AM)Gladyon Wrote: [ -> ]
(2018-05-27, 09:10 PM)Char_charodon Wrote: [ -> ]while we´re at the subject of crams, would it be possible to add a button that evenly distributes materials across crams sharing the same pellet box through autoloaders? i Think this would be counterintuitive if it worked for 6 ways as well, but for loaders its totally fair since they require you to lay things out.

I'm not sure I understand exactly.
Are you saying that some CRAM components can be shared among several CRAM firing pieces?

It is carry on from cannons when two guns could get bonus from ammo box but only one would get ammo.
CRAM firing pieces can use the same HE, EMP, AP and frag pellets. But if you put an ammo box in a slot that is serviced by (autoloaders of) multiple firing pieces, only 1 firing piece gets the reload speed counted, so mixing ammo boxes is a no-go. Making efficient multi-firing piece CRAM stacks is all about sharing the right pellets. sometimes, upon placing the box or the firing pieces, it looks like all is well. Upon placing the turret though, it may happen that all shared ammo boxes are pulled to 1 of the firing pieces. Same goes for guage increasers: sometimes during building a complex stack, all barrels appear to have the same guage, but upon loading the turret in again, 1 barrel is large, the rest shrunk to needles.

Since recent HE radius extension, CRAM stacks are not as safe as they used to be, although it is still possible to put non-reactive pellets on the outside and ammo/HE on the inside.

I dont think CRAMs need much of a buff. It is the current meta that needs to be toned down so more options, like CRAMs, become interesting and worthwhile again. Im thinking LAMs and shields, mostly. CRAMs vs kinda-fast objects at longer ranges might be hard to do right: CRAMs can be very precise, but as already mentioned their shell speed is not great. 180m/s for a good size CRAM is doable, but a good CRAM becomes expensive very quickly. And 180m/s, even with good accuracy, is not enough for , say, AA on 1000m range againt 50m/s craft. But I dont believe that should change, necessarily. Do note that a 180m/s 2000mm CRAM shell, shot from a barrel equipped with a flash suppressor (though that particular block is a pain for the eyes), those shells will make it through most LAMs without the need for huge volleys.

A CRAM stack of a given dimension is often more expensive than a similar-sized APS construction. I once switched out APS turrets on a tournament entry for CRAM turrets. Basically, only the turret internals changed, but it was 2000 mat more expensive per turret. Again not necessarily bad, but it makes APS more competitive under most circumstances.
(2018-05-28, 04:09 PM)Fernir Wrote: [ -> ]It is carry on from cannons when two guns could get bonus from ammo box but only one would get ammo.
Well, you are not supposed to be able to share CRAM components from one firing piece to another one.
The code prevents it, as it does for any other multi-blocks systems except for the piping multi-blocks systems.

So, it is a standard behavior.
You can use the ProtecTechTools Industries in order to highlight the blocks attached to a specific Firing piece, that way you can know to which firing piece the ammo box is attached to.

Note that in some conditions the attachments may change upon reloading or repairing.
That's quite an annoyance, but there's no easy way to fix it so I bet it will stay like that for some time, probably until FtD enters in a bugs-swatting phase.


(2018-05-28, 04:30 PM)NutterChap Wrote: [ -> ]Since recent HE radius extension, CRAM stacks are not as safe as they used to be, although it is still possible to put non-reactive pellets on the outside and ammo/HE on the inside.
Yes, I saw that.
In fact it comes from the fact that I have only balanced the 'normal' explosions.
The 'blocks' explosions are processed differently, and I haven't touched that.

But in fact, I like the fact that CRAM blocks can chain-react a bit (in fact, the chances they do chain-react are slim).
So, I won't volunteer to change it.
Pages: 1 2