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

#11
khaz, you can look over at my cannon request page, I have linked several platforms with a variety of guns (but mostly APS) on the OP, and more spread throughout.
(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

#12
I'd say that CRAM is more or less fine. If anything they need another +50m/s speed buff and better gauge scaling.

APS on the other hand is so ridiculously easy to spam high damage 500mm shells with that it renders any non shielded vehicle useless (and even then you could just throw some disruptor rounds in your ammo mix and then the shields are rendered useless.)
[Image: Br2rXov.jpg]
Reply

#13
I would love to see a cram attachment that hybrids Missiles and Cram with rounds that can course correct by up to 15* from center (30* cone). So even with slower travel speed they could course correct, however I think this system should consume Processing power and the amount of consumption increases with gauge? The course correction would also be dependent on continues information from the ships mainframe so line of sight must be maintained. Just a thought that most likely will get shot down but hey, who would not love better bomb shoot planes.
Reply

#14
How about a magnet attachment for CRAM?

It would take up a significant amount of shell space (up to 15-20%) but would cause the shell's flight path to "gravitate" towards targets when the shell get within a certain distance.
[Image: Br2rXov.jpg]
Reply

#15
A quick comparison, some CRAMs with shared boxes I had around and a makeshift APS cannons for the same cost.
APS turret costs ~700 less to account for railgun energy cost(assuming ~350 PPF turbos and 15min battles).
APS uses clips to avoid ammo cost(2x112 499mm shells should be enough for the battle and reloading can be done with ammo box stations if campaign cost is a concern).

For every 2000mm CRAM shell you get ~5.8 APS ones(499mm X 8m).
That's:
  • 6.5x as much kinetic damage, assuming CRAM doesn't waste any AP on armor(a single APS shell is already stronger than a CRAM one)
  • 1.4x as much explosive damage
  • 11.5x as much frag damage. APS frag display is bugged, 499mm 360° has 94x948 damage. IIRC CRAM is fixed 60° and 100 base damage, so 60 pellets with 500x1.5 = 750 damage each. Don't quote me on the CRAM numbers, but it's in that ballpark.

Overall APS is no question better, dunno how much the new explosion mechanics favor big payloads but it can't be enough to make them even remotely good enough.
APS doesn't have ejectors and inertial fuses, but with 740 m/s they have a non-zero chance of hitting things(CRAM's 175 is useless).

A much better APS setup would be 4m with HP/HE/frag/frag/inertial/base bleeder, CRAM doesn't have HP so that'd be really unfair.
With those shells APS damage goes through the roof and it still has ~400m/s.

TL;DR CRAM is really bad, completely useless when you take shell speed into account.

[Image: tLmdN39l.jpg] [Image: EkIJn2Bh.jpg]
[Image: fowDvhzm.jpg]


Attached Files
.blueprint   APS_CRAM_comparison.blueprint (Size: 119.63 KB / Downloads: 1)
Reply

#16
There's no debate, CRAM is completely inferior to APS, or any other weapon (except perhaps the missiles, but that's not even sure as missiles hit more often than CRAM).

I use CRAM only for bombers because that works reasonably well as you usually fire from a closer distance than with guns, but that's not enough to make them efficient, it's more that I like them as bombs...
I also use them as depth charges, but only because I like that, because they never hit... the AI is totally unable to use depth charges correctly and even if it could, with the water changing the shell trajectory it's a 99.9% chances to miss...

And that's true that the cost of CRAM is higher than APS, I've always wondered why, but I suppose there's no real reason.
It should be fixed in the next balancing pass, whenever it will be.
Reply

#17
(2018-07-12, 08:27 PM)Pathos The Kosmonaut Wrote: How about a magnet attachment for CRAM?

It would take up a significant amount of shell space (up to 15-20%) but would cause the shell's flight path to "gravitate" towards targets when the shell get within a certain distance.

This. This needs to be done. Either by a mod or an update, atleast so I can play with this. I know, its illogical, but this, sounds really amazing.

[+o+]
Reply

#18
(2018-07-13, 04:03 AM)YD12 Wrote:
(2018-07-12, 08:27 PM)Pathos The Kosmonaut Wrote: How about a magnet attachment for CRAM?

It would take up a significant amount of shell space (up to 15-20%) but would cause the shell's flight path to "gravitate" towards targets when the shell get within a certain distance.

This. This needs to be done. Either by a mod or an update, atleast so I can play with this. I know, its illogical, but this, sounds really amazing.

[+o+]

As a priest of logic, I must differ.
CRAM magnet and MIRV upgrade is in our religion.
From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73
MULTIPLAYER!

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Reply

#19
I dunno... I dont get that warm fuzzy feeling when I think about magnets or other some such raggedy-ass 'guidance' being slopped into CRAM.
I like my CRAMS big, well stacked, and 'feeling' heavy. Theyre no match DPS wise for APS, and thus are never an option when going meta.

CRAMs miss too often, are too expensive, are not as inert as they used to be, are not offering the DPS to be competitive, nor the alpha damage to REALLY make up for it.
CRAMs are accurate as in they hit static objects often enough. But when are targets static?
I dont think CRAMs should be just-as-able to deal with faster and flying objects like APS does. It would take away the 'thing' APS has going for it (IMHO). CRAMs were always intended for breaking the thick skin of slow moving objects and that is OK. But meta moved away from thickly armored and slow, to 'so fast your hitscan fails' and offensive firepower + shields. The entire meta just doesnt favor CRAMs.

Perhaps make CRAMs even better against their intended targets (slower but very heavily armored foes), together with a balancing act to somehow make slower craft and thick armor relevant again in the meta. That way, people will make perfect CRAM targets more often, and with a CRAM even better suited against those, suddenyl CRAM would become a logical choice even for meta.

Now the questions are:
-how can the 'slow and heavily armored' design path be made more (or even very) attractive meta-wise
-how can CRAMs be made a downright better choice than APS when going up against slow/heavy armor designs

Just my idea.

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

#20
If you ask me, mechanics should encourage direct-feed for high gauge APS, and keep high fire rates for smaller guns only. However, you would have to overhaul a lot of mechanics to make that work.
A great nation is not a nation that rules the world. A great nation is a nation that realizes they don't have to.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)