Quick ? on multiple-shot ships

[Toranth]

Lightning warhead damage does not increase as ship caps go down? Ouch.

On normal they are quite useful, I can see how on low or ultra-low they would become much less useful for the AIP increase they cause.

D.

I've noticed a lot of strange things going on in the low-cap games.  Some things scale, others don't, and this plays merry havoc with balance.  Warheads happen to be one of those things that didn't scale (same cap as Normal, so same stats) but changed in ability because of interactions.
Zenith Beam Frigates, on the other hand... Impressive.

And maybe lightning warheads are fine, I just remember seeing feedback about them being very underwhelming from several folks not terribly long ago.

Well, there are a couple of things that keep me from (ab)using them much.
1)  They cause AIP
2)  Threat ball often consists of many Frigates and Carriers.  Frigates are immune.  Carriers have so many HP, 3 MK IIIs are needed to kill just one.
3)  They don't scale with unit caps.  On ultra-low caps, it takes a Mk III warhead to take out most fleet ships - and even that isn't enough for some.
4)  Warhead interceptors.  Core worlds and homeworlds, where they'd be most useful, are effectively immune.
5)  The small area of effect.  Related, the fact that the Mk III has half the radius of the Mk I.
And finally,
6) Martyrs.

Other than #6, I believe my list is pretty much equivalent here.  It's sad when I'll build off two MK Is instead of a MK II not because of damage, but because the range of the MK I gives me more kills for the same AIP increase.  MK III is practically pointless on threat-ball removal.

Well, the Mk I does 600,000 damage, range 1500, AIP 1.  Mk II is 3,000,000, range 1250, AIP 2.  Mk III is 4,800,000 damage, range 750, AIP 3.
The Mk I -> Mk II jump results in 500% damage, 70% area of effect, 200% AIP.  Mk II -> Mk III is 160% of damage, but 36% area and 150% AIP.
From Mk I -> Mk III in total is 800% damage, 25% area, 300% AIP.
So, yeah.  If two Mk Is will kill your threatball ships, it's a far better choice than a single Mk II.  About half the damage, but basically 50% more area than a Mk II.  And that's pretty important.

EMP is my preferred solution, but again... doesn't work on Core stuff, even if the Core Warhead Interceptors aren't there.

[Martyn van Buren]

What do people think about giving lightning warheads the same buff martyrs got, "immunity to AOE immunity"?

Yeah, I think if martyrs get it lightning warheads ought to.  Warheads are supposed to be kinda OP weapons you can buy for AIP; seems like they should outclass something you can get from a common asteroid type.

[Diazo]

Actually, on warheads, if anything needs some changes it is the armored warhead.

I don't think I've ever actually used one of these.

At twice the AIP and almost 30x the resource cost for the same damage and slower missile that has 30x the health?

If anything, I'd like to see the armored warhead become a single target guaranteed kill (against the appropriate Mark level).

There is an Eye in the system and the last guard post is under an FF and surrounded by all the ships left in the system so I can't attacked it without taking massive losses or triggering the eye?

Armored Missile time! (Well, probably not in a real game, eye's are not that threatning but it gets my point across.)

The damage and the AIP cost would need tweaking, but this would give it a different purpose then the lighting missile.

D.

[Commiesalami]

Actually, on warheads, if anything needs some changes it is the armored warhead.

I don't think I've ever actually used one of these.

At twice the AIP and almost 30x the resource cost for the same damage and slower missile that has 30x the health?

If anything, I'd like to see the armored warhead become a single target guaranteed kill (against the appropriate Mark level).

There is an Eye in the system and the last guard post is under an FF and surrounded by all the ships left in the system so I can't attacked it without taking massive losses or triggering the eye?

Armored Missile time! (Well, probably not in a real game, eye's are not that threatning but it gets my point across.)

The damage and the AIP cost would need tweaking, but this would give it a different purpose then the lighting missile.

D.

Wasn't the armored missle designed for that purpose some number of versions ago?  I remember sending it in to handle tricky raid engine situations.

[Toranth]

Actually, on warheads, if anything needs some changes it is the armored warhead.

I don't think I've ever actually used one of these.

At twice the AIP and almost 30x the resource cost for the same damage and slower missile that has 30x the health?

If anything, I'd like to see the armored warhead become a single target guaranteed kill (against the appropriate Mark level).

There is an Eye in the system and the last guard post is under an FF and surrounded by all the ships left in the system so I can't attacked it without taking massive losses or triggering the eye?

Armored Missile time! (Well, probably not in a real game, eye's are not that threatning but it gets my point across.)

The damage and the AIP cost would need tweaking, but this would give it a different purpose then the lighting missile.

D.

Wasn't the armored missle designed for that purpose some number of versions ago?  I remember sending it in to handle tricky raid engine situations.

If I remember correctly, the armored warheads used to do 10x the damage, but cost 10x the AIP.  At 10 AIP for the Mk I, I don't think a lot of people used them.

[Diazo]

Hun. I don't remember that.

Either way, I just checked and the actually damage, range and targets hit is the same for the Lighting Warhad and the Armored Warhead currently.

Hence my comment about never using the Armored warhead, the extra cost and AIP is not worth it to me.

D.

[TechSY730]

The idea behind the current armored warhead is that you can use it to hit targets "deep" in AI territory.
Of course, this need rarely comes up, and often time spirecraft penetrators, transport full of raid starships, or spirecraft jumpships filled with raid starships can do just as good or possibly even better, with no AIP cost.

Still, sometimes I have had a need to take out something like a Neinzul nest that has been annoying me but is a good distance away and well defended.

[Martyn van Buren]

Yeah, I can't imagine needing a lightning warhead deep in AI territory; you generally want them right near your borders. But a single target definitely --- raid engines, cross-planet boosters, and especially advanced hybrid things. I think making armored warheads act as mk iv, v, and vi lightning warheads (as in, tinier ranges and huger damage) could make them more worth their cost.  Of course, you'd generally want to use penetrators or raid starships, but warheads are precisely for doing jobs your fleet ought to do when you have an emergency they can't handle.

[Diazo]

The idea behind the current armored warhead is that you can use it to hit targets "deep" in AI territory.
Of course, this need rarely comes up, and often time spirecraft penetrators, transport full of raid starships, or spirecraft jumpships filled with raid starships can do just as good or possibly even better, with no AIP cost.

Still, sometimes I have had a need to take out something like a Neinzul nest that has been annoying me but is a good distance away and well defended.

The thing is, a lot of those structures have so much HP even a Mk III Armored can't take them out. I would actually need to check how many have more then 6mil HP and are not Major Electric immune, if its not as many as I remember then maybe it is okay. There should be a few structures you can't warhead for balance reasons but I remember it being pretty high the number of structures that can survive a warhead.

D.