Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage

#1
This is pretty much kicking a dead cow's corpse at this point, but I feel the need to adress this thing all the same.

While building designs for my Age of Sails CC, I can't help but notice how a small broadside of medium-end (say, 7*7*7) CRAMS sends the cost of a ship skyrocketing compared to a simple APS setup that is far less space consuming, for less costly, and equally if not more effective.


A ship with either an APS or Cram Setup of comparable damage output can easily differ 50k to 75k if not more in material cost, which I feel is a bit too much.

Yes, I know you are supposed to build fewer bigger Crams, but please, for the sake of diversity, allow cost and damage effective small setups too?

At this point I see simply no reason why a player would build a CRAM ship in my campaign as opposed to an APS ship that can pack far more punch for far less cost. For the AI this is not an issue honestly, but I still feel CRAMS could recieve an economic buff and overhaul at a smaller scale. Plenty of threads already have suggestions, and as a firm proponent I feel even a slight packing time buff or shell drag decrease (speed increase) inverse to callibre would already help.

As it is now, it's just a bit silly.
Imperium Age of Sail Campaign Custom Campaign Dev Idea

Check it out here!

- The Best Cello Concerto of all time - No, It's not Elgar's
Reply

#2
Best thing to do is build both, give fixed RP in storage, with very little ammo catches for free ammo, and use ammo processors powered by rtgs. This way you can watch for how much damage different systems do for amount of RP consumption vs the inital cost. Keep in mind this is not something you can easily calculate based on excel templates but needs to be tested ingame where things miss.
Reply

#3
Better yet, make up a bunch of different sized CRAM and APS turrets, pop them on a building or fortress and upload the blueprint here. Then I can compare costs and damage tests etc. Some of the 2.0+ changes may have thrown out the balance.
Reply

#4
That's a good offer from Khaz.
I second this, as mostly my love for and the terror factor of crams is why I keep using them. Smile
From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73
MULTIPLAYER!

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Reply

#5
Now there is a wide variety in effectiveness of CRAMs. A good example:
I built a stack that, excluding the barrels, would cost 24900 materials. It has 4 firing pieces, pumped to 2000mm.
Each barrel has a reload of 15 or so seconds, and proper loading of the shells as well.

While the alpha damage is rediculous, its DPS is pathetic compared tot a 25000 materials 4-firingpiece APS contraption, even when including the ammo generation in that cost. So I must concur: CRAMs are cool, but costly and useless when compared to APS.
Fileld clips are explosive, but with the new explosion damage algo, ammo boxes and HE boxes on cram stacks easily detonate across the entire stack. They didnt used to, as long as proper checker-boarding was used. So inherent safety is already not much of a win for CRAM anymore.

Heck, the guns you find in Sea Encounters - Battleships are dirt cheap, yet they can output rediculous damage. Only the accuracy and water skipping of high velocity APS is somewhat less favourable than high-guage long-barrel CRAM.

CRAM CRASH COURSE

(There is) A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
-Ecclesiastes 3:3
Reply

#6
(2018-07-06, 10:23 AM)NutterChap Wrote: Fileld clips are explosive, but with the new explosion damage algo, ammo boxes and HE boxes on cram stacks easily detonate across the entire stack. They didnt used to, as long as proper checker-boarding was used. So inherent safety is already not much of a win for CRAM anymore.

Not to mention that APS guns, even explosive ones, can be fitted with ammo ejectors or made inherently safe with the power of direct-feed.
Reply

#7
the only reason I like building crams more is because I just cant get APS to work and I just love the deep blast when my cram fires, but yeah I know that APS is way better and that crams are being left at the sideline
Reply

#8
CRAMs are underpowered and should be buffed. End of.
"If it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid."-TheMightyJingles.

My last name is Proctor
The Proctor is a ship in the game
Yay. I'm happy.

Blueprint thread: http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...?tid=28006
Reply

#9
If you would have read through, khaz wanted some examples to see the difference to determine how much to buff, more than just "CRAMs are weak".
(2017-04-20, 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote: I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Reply

#10
Effective DPS skews towards APS even more with how easy it is to just not be hit by a CRAM shot. Given that is an inherent feature of CRAM, little you can do about that other than adding a guidance module to CRAM shells ( I think I've suggested this before, once? ).

"BUFF DIS" is not the answer to everything. Sometimes you have to make other things worse instead, which is an indirect buff.
Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 07/04/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. No more post-processing! finally! but now I can't read the forum.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)