TC Weapon Comparisons

[AndrewRG]

Has anyone put together a guide outlining damage per second per laser energy per second? Mainly, I'd like to compare the PRG and HEPT. For the moment, I'm putting aside all other factors like range, projectile speed and size, etc.

According to my calculations, the two look like this:

PRG: (765+7,200)/138 = 57.7 DPS/LEPS
HEPT: (1,500+9,400)/188 = 58.0 DPS/LEPS

I could use some input on my calculation here. Obviously, it's slightly flawed to simply add hull and shield damage together as a total. And the "per second" cancels.

What prompted me to post about this is seeing such high praise for the "good ol" all-round HEPT, while its only marginally more efficient than the PRG. In addition, the HEPT is disproportionately heavier on hull damage, which is much less important than shield damage. Together, these two points turn its "marginally higher efficiency" into "negligibly higher efficiency" at best. Couple this with the fact that the PRG is leaps and bounds more accurate, and I'm left confused as hell why someone would choose a HEPT over a PRG in an appropriately compatible slot. Cheaper maybe?

On a side note, I'd also be interested in knowing what the mean is for hull:shield ratio for all ships (or maybe on a per class basis). This would help to figure out ideal damage ratios respectively.

Input appreciated.

[pref]

If you mean IS and as player weapon, then projectile velocity and rate of fire might also change the picture - depends on how you like it.

If its OOS then HEPT is better.

[AndrewRG]

If you mean IS and as player weapon, then projectile velocity and rate of fire might also change the picture - depends on how you like it.

If its OOS then HEPT is better.

Right. Obviously when considering efficiency I'm assuming IS. And player ship, yes. Personally, I don't use fighters for OoS combat.

[Alan Phipps]

Also bullet size/collision envelope matters for IS. For example on a small but stationary target (think Squash mine) at longer ranges, the HEPT or PAC bigger bullets are more likely to hit and do decent damage than a PRG because the latter has a scatter cone of quite small bullets. Against a rapidly moving small target the PRG is more likely to get hits because of its spread and higher bullet speed but even so may do less damage than the occasional hit by a HEPT or PAC. Against targets you really cannot miss there is little to chose between HEPT and PRG for energy efficiency.

Nothing to stop you mixing weapons of similar ranges in the same group though and so get the best (and worst) of both at the same time. Weapons of different bullet speeds in the same group will use different trajectories to get to their calculated interception points.

TLDR: Different weapons have pros and cons that you only find out by using them in combat. Mixed weapons in the same group do have their uses.

[AndrewRG]

Against a rapidly moving small target the PRG is more likely to get hits because of its spread and higher bullet speed but even so may do less damage than the occasional hit by a HEPT or PAC.

Could you offer a context in which this would be true?

To me, it seems like the larger projectile size of the HEPT is overwhelmingly beaten by the speed of the PRG. Like you say, this difference isn't as pronounced with a large, slow target. But with a small, fast-moving target, the PRG blows it away. I get what you are saying in your SQUASH mine example, however, I just don't see many contexts in which the HEPT's larger size trumps the PRG's speed.

[Alan Phipps]

Simple: with say a fast small crossing target at range, if you are good enough to get the occasional hit with a HEPT, then you will possibly out-damage the regular but low-damage you get from a PRG hitting with very few bullets even though the target is kept right inside its cone of fire scatter. PRG is not like a longer range PBE when it comes to hits per burst fired.

With practice, you can judge where the target is going to fly next and put a stream of HEPT bullets for it to fly into. That can still kill it quicker than a constant low damage hosing down with accurate PRG fire. Try sniping fast fighters with CIG if you want to see what I mean - the bullet is slow but huge and the kills are quick if you get it right. Actually, I think Terran weapons like E/EMPC rely on this!

Now mix PRG and HEPT in one group and you have another method to utilise.

Oh, I should say that I don't always use full auto-aim when I want to kill small agile targets - but I don't mix weapons then.

[AndrewRG]

That's fair enough. I suppose if you can reliably cursor fire a HEPT at long distances. That sounds slightly on the silly side to me though; I have doubts as to anybody doing that reliably enough to average a higher damage output than a PRG in the same context. But you bring up a good point; for one thing, I turned on Boresight and never looked back.

[Alan Phipps]

<Shrug> Give different people the same musical instrument and you will get different music I suppose.

[DrBullwinkle]

Has anyone put together a guide outlining damage per second per laser energy per second?

Not a guide, but I did make some notes for myself, which I do not mind sharing. It may take a moment to figure out my notes, but they do exactly what you ask (including bullet size and Shield-to-Hull Ratios).

Legend
DPE = Damage Per unit of Energy (Hull/Shields)
DPM = Damage Per Minute (Hull/Shields)
EPM = Energy Per Minute
Spd = Speed
Bullet size = Bullet size
Shield:Hull ratio = Shield-to-Hull damage ratio
RPM = Rounds Per Minute
Items in bold are noteworthy.


Laser Stats from AP:
IRE DPE = 5.25 / 55
DPM = 8.4k / 88k
EPM = 1.6k
Spd = 1162
Bullet size = 4 x 0.07
Shield:Hull ratio = 10.5
RPM = 400
---
EMPC DPE = 26 / 65 More efficient than PAC
DPM = 126k / 314k 2.5x hull damage of PAC
EPM = 4.9k
Spd = 588
Bullet size = 5 x 0.08 Huge bullet
Shield:Hull ratio = 2.5
RPM = 157
Damage Over Time (energy) 1,000 x 2 seconds
---
PAC DPE = 6.2 / 50
DPM = 45k / 367k
EPM = 7.2k
Spd = 703
Bullet size = 3
Shield:Hull ratio = 8.2
RPM = 314
---
PBE DPE = 2.5 / 67.5 Highest DPE (shields) for small gun
DPM = 40.4k / 1,091k Highest DPM (shields) for small gun
EPM = 16k Almost as much energy required as CIG
Spd = 6890 Fastest Bullet
Bullet size = 20 x 0.07
Shield:Hull ratio = 27 Highest Shield/Hull Ratio of any gun
RPM = 1154
---
PRG Dmg per energy = 5.5 / 52
DPM = 46k / 434k
EPM = 8.3k
Spd = 1560
Bullet size = 4
Shield:Hull ratio = 9.4
RPM = 638
---
FBL DPE = 7.7 / 46
DPM = 89k / 528k
EPM = 12k
Spd = 359
Bullet size = 4
Shield:Hull ratio = 5.9
RPM = 189
---
HEPT DPE = 8.3 / 50
DPM = 94k / 565k
EPM = 11k
Spd = 431
Bullet size = 4
Shield:Hull ratio = 6
RPM = 283
---
EBCG DPE = 54 / 339 (Ammunition-based)
DPM = 86k / 563k
EPM = 1.6k
Spd = 604
Bullet size = 4
Shield:Hull ratio = 6.5
RPM = 395
---
ISR DPE = 7.8 / 21.5 (Hull / Shield)
DPM = 222k / 617k Higher DPM than CIG (10%)
EPM = 29k
Spd = 498
Bullet Size = 4 x .065
Shield:Hull ratio = 2.8
Target Energy Drain per Minute = 10,395
RPM = 231
---
PPC DPE = 20 / 111
DPM = 499k / 2,806k
EPM = 25k
Spd = 333
Bullet size = 5 x 0.1
Shield:Hull ratio = 5.6
RPM = 44
---
PSP DPE = 38 / 101 Very Efficient Big Gun
DPM = 575k / 1,514k
EPM = 15k
Spd = 321
Bullet size = 5 x 0.1
Shield:Hull ratio = 2.6
RPM = 6
---
CIG DPE = 10.6 / 31.9 20-50% more energy efficient than ISR
DPM = 196k / 588k
EPM = 19k
Spd = 420
Bullet Size = 1 x 1
Shield:Hull ratio = 3.0
RPM = 75
---
PSG DPE = 0.24 / 4.5
DPM = 8k / 152k
EPM = 34k
Spd =
Bullet size =
Shield:Hull ratio = 18.8
RPM = 76
---
IBL DPE = 17 / 97
DPM = 495k / 2,797k
EPM = 29k
Spd = 312
Bullet size = 5 x 0.1
Shield:Hull ratio = 5.7
RPM = 55
---
FAA DPE = 3.1 / 20
DPM = 117k / 776k
EPM = 38k Very energy hungry
Spd = 7051
Bullet size = 3 x 15
Shield:Hull ratio = 6.6
RPM = 56
---
M/AML DPE = 69 / 186 Fantastic for M3/M6. Light-but-low-energy for Big Ships.
DPM = 223k / 601k Like ISR/CIG
EPM = 3.2k
Spd = 445
Bullet size = 1
Shield:Hull ratio = 2.7
RPM = 72
---
GC DPE = 141 / 332
DPM = 1,080k / 2,540k Hull-Shredding Big Gun
EPM = 7.7k
Spd = 353
Bullet size = 5 x 0.1
Shield:Hull ratio = 2.4
RPM = 89
---
Ion Cannon:
IC Damage per Energy (DPE) = 7.5 / 131 (Hull / Shields)
Damage per Minute (DPM) = 226k / 3,932k
Energy per Minute (EPM) = 30k
Speed = 387
Bullet size = 5 x 0.1
Shield:Hull ratio = 17
Rounds per Minute (RPM) = 33
---

[AndrewRG]

Thanks Bullwinkle, looks like we got the same thing. What's your take on the HEPT vs. PRG? Am I way off base here? Do you cursor fire the HEPT with your mad skillz? =)

[DrBullwinkle]

What's your take on the HEPT vs. PRG?

Alan's description is interesting, and I have not tried it.

My experience is that HEPT is highly over-rated; mostly for the reasons that you state -- too many misses results in poor "Energy per Hit".

On the other hand, I *have* noticed the "spatter" effect that Alan describes with PRG's. At range, against fast-moving targets, PRG's miss quite a bit, as well.

Early in the game I use PAC's. They are cheap, efficient, and hit often. I also mount PAC's on AI-flown fighters -- almost exclusively.

When I can afford better weapons (and ships that mount them), I prefer PBE and EBCG combination for small guns, and PBE/ISR for larger weapons.

However, my experience could be biased towards "capture" rather than "kill".

I almost always mix weapons for best "effect per energy" -- even on capital ships. As long as you do it with some thought about the weapons, mixing them works great. Auto-targeting handles variations in bullet speed nicely, and range is not much of an issue if you have your energy balance tuned for maximum fire.

For example, Flak works great but can rob even an M2 of energy. So I often mix FAA with EBCG. Both work well for fighter and missile defense, although FAA has much longer range. But the EBCG balance the energy required for FAA, so the net effect is a lot of "damage per energy".

[AndrewRG]

I remember first starting out in X3TC. Of course I chose the "Terran Defender" start because of all the in-game fluff about the "advanced" Terran technology. Sure, Terran ships are faster, better shielded, with beefier generators, etc., but the first thing they have you do is chase the damned reticle around on a Xenon N whizzing around at 300 m/s and all you've got is an EMPC and you've never even heard of Boresight fire which is hidden 8 layers deep in control and settings menus. After 10 minutes of this, you start to think to yourself, "OK, either this is a really long game, or I suck!

It wasn't long before I started looking much more closely at weapons specs and realized that for 1 less 25MJ shield, I could get a commonwealth ship with a weapon that might hit something once in a while. Only until after that was it that I learned about boresight fire. Good times.

[Hemmingfish]

I usually use a mix of PAC and HEPT, but between the two I'd go with PAC. The only places where you'd really need to use HEPTs are against targets you want dead really fast or ships heavier than M3+, seeing as against fighters HEPTs are generally harder to hit with than a steady stream of PAC.

I tried PRG a couple times instead of PAC, but I found the damage to be too low for the energy cost to keep sustained fire up on anything larger than an M4, and with M5 to M4 ships you don't need the speed if you have IREs or PACs.

[AndrewRG]

I usually use a mix of PAC and HEPT, but between the two I'd go with PAC. The only places where you'd really need to use HEPTs are against targets you want dead really fast or ships heavier than M3+, seeing as against fighters HEPTs are generally harder to hit with than a steady stream of PAC.

Precisely, and both are generally harder to hit with than a steady stream of PRG... This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Additionally:

PRG: (765+7,200)/138 = 57.7 DPS/LEPS
HEPT: (1,500+9,400)/188 = 58.0 DPS/LEPS
PAC: (748+6000)/120 = 56.2 DPS/LEPS

These numbers mean that, if you never miss with any of these weapons, all 3 have virtually the same laser energy efficiency (technically, the HEPT is marginally more efficient, and the PAC is marginally the least efficient). However, you now have to take into account the weapon's accuracy, in which case the PRG is much more accurate than both the PAC and HEPT in my experience. So, when you consider that you miss more often with a PAC, and especially a HEPT, the PRG is much more efficient in "damage actually inflicted per unit of energy used."

I tried PRG a couple times instead of PAC, but I found the damage to be too low for the energy cost to keep sustained fire up on anything larger than an M4, and with M5 to M4 ships you don't need the speed if you have IREs or PACs.

The numbers above directly contradict this. Again, when projectile velocity (accuracy) is not considered, all three weapons have virtually the same efficiency. The only way what you say could be true is if you are actually missing more with a PRG than with a PAC or HEPT. I'm curious how you are using the weapons that this could possibly be the case. On paper, and indeed in my own experiences in combat, the faster muzzle velocity directly translates into better accuracy, despite some of the other particular dynamics we've talked about above.

Like I said, I'm interested in hearing about people's experience with the weapons, how they're using them, and the specific circumstances of the fight.

[DrBullwinkle]

The only way what you say could be true is if you are actually missing more with a PRG than with a PAC or HEPT.

Right. Which is exactly what Alan described at the beginning of the thread.

I have seen it as well. PRG's miss a lot of shots at long range against fast-moving targets. It is probably due to spread of the bullets, which increases at longer ranges.

At longer ranges, even fast-bullets like PRG may not hit their targets.

[AndrewRG]

The only way what you say could be true is if you are actually missing more with a PRG than with a PAC or HEPT.

Right. Which is exactly what Alan described at the beginning of the thread.

I have seen it as well. PRG's miss a lot of shots at long range against fast-moving targets. It is probably due to spread of the bullets, which increases at longer ranges.

I understand that, but what Alan describes requires fairly consistent hits with a PAC or HEPT at long distances. Essentially, the circumstances he's outlined minimize the accuracy of the PRG at long distances, while also not considering the reduction in accuracy of the HEPT respectively. This requires:

1.) Incredible skill at placing shots where you want them at long range.
2.) Incredible intuition in predicting frequent course changes of fast targets at long range.
3.) Not using boresight fire.

Admittedly, which weapon is "better" depends on how you use it, but even in granting that an incredibly skilled gunner can pull this off, I don't see it occurring frequently enough to average a higher damage output, given all the varying combat conditions and complexities one may encounter. Of course, as Alan points out, you should arrange a mix of weapons and groupings to reflect these variations - and I do - but that's not really what we're comparing here.

None of us are even bringing up the fact that we don't just hold the button down constantly, but rather we wait for the best opportunities to fire. For example, when a target gets closer than the max range of the weapon, or when they slow down, or turn, etc. In my experience, the opportunities to actually make a hit are more frequent, again, with a PRG.

I agree that the PRG loses accuracy at long range, but not near as much as the PAC or HEPT do. In my experience, at long range, the PRG is still more accurate and efficient.

[Alan Phipps]

Not really. What I described was occasional hits with HEPT or PAC at longer ranges using a stream (or streams) of bullets manually aimed-off for the target to fly into that may, if done well, kill the target sooner than a consistent but low rate of hits from PRG always pointed accurately at the predicted dynamic aim point.

The one thing you may be missing in your facts and stats is that when you are in furball combat with several hostiles, how quickly you kill the current target is as important as energy efficiency. Saving energy for the next target is not that much use if the other hostiles finish you off while you are still fixated on the first target that is taking a while in dying.

I consider more about killtime-efficiency and not just energy-efficiency. I also change weapons group a lot in combat according to current target and its presentation and circumsttances.

One more example if I may. In X3AP the heavy missiles/torpedos are armoured and do not detonate at a tickle. If you want to survive long when there are hostile missile boats around then you don't put PRG in your missile defence turrets, you put HEPT or something heavier there if you can. (Plus using Mosquito Missile Defence of course.)

Please realise that I not saying my way is better for everyone and that other ways are in any way inferior. What I am saying is that my results support the methods I have adopted for my playstyle and ship set-ups.

[AndrewRG]

Not really. What I described was occasional hits with HEPT or PAC at longer ranges using a stream of bullets manually aimed-off for the target to fly into that may, if done well, kill the target sooner than a consistent but low rate of hits from PRG always pointed accurately at the predicted dynamic aim point.

I didn't mean to characterize what you said as "always hits with a HEPT at long ranges". What you just said is what I understood. And my points in response I think are still valid.

The one thing you may be missing in your facts and stats is that when you are in furball combat with several hostiles, how quickly you kill the current target is as important as energy efficiency. Saving energy for the next target is not that much use if the other hostiles finish you off while you are still fixated on the first target that is taking a while in dying.

I'm not really "missing" that, but you're right; I concede this.

I consider more about killtime-efficiency and not just energy-efficiency.

I hear ya. But for me, those two things are largely correlative in the long run.

Please realise that I not saying my way is better for everyone and that other ways are in any way inferior. What I am saying is that my results support the methods I have adopted for my playstyle and ship set-ups.

Not at all. Usage of these weapons, and particularly the combat context, is precisely what I was hoping to hear. Especially from people that may disagree and/or subsequently fight differently than me.

[jlehtone]

Which commonwealth fighter (energy) weapon do you prefer?

None.

1. I don't fly fighters. M5 is a method of transportation. I had so short stint in M3 between Disco and the heavier ships that I had no time nor resources to prefer anything. Besides, they sell flamethrowers to me.
2. Fighter wings I buy remotely, on a whim, with whatever I can muster with minimal effort.

This is probably far from optimal, elegant, and efficient, but it has got the job done so far.

[AndrewRG]

I don't fly fighters. M5 is a method of transportation. I had so short stint in M3 between Disco and the heavier ships that I had no time nor resources to prefer anything.

You're missing out.