Aircraft Firepower Table - Revision history

Hobbes: categorizing

2013-07-23T03:42:36Z

categorizing

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:42, 23 July 2013
Line 293:		Line 293:
	* [[Craft]]		* [[Craft]]
	[[Category: Data tables]]		[[Category: Data tables]]
			[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]

Spike: Complete update of table based on observed rates of fire

2010-02-11T02:02:47Z

Complete update of table based on observed rates of fire

Show changes

Spike: 2nd explanatory link to correct RoF and corrected relative firepower

2009-11-04T15:28:29Z

2nd explanatory link to correct RoF and corrected relative firepower

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:28, 4 November 2009
Line 168:		Line 168:
	</table>		</table>

	'''Warning''': The Rate of Fire basis of this table is probably wrong in significant ways. See [[Talk:UFO_Interception#Observed_Rates_of_Fire]]. This, in turn, means most other computed values on this table are wrong. It also casts doubts on the conclusions below.		'''Warning''': The Rate of Fire basis of this table is probably wrong in significant ways. See [[Talk:UFO_Interception#Observed_Rates_of_Fire\|here]] and [[Talk:UFO_Interception#Firepower_Based_on_Observed_Rates_of_Fire\|here]]. This, in turn, means most other computed values on this table are wrong. It also casts doubts on the conclusions below.

	'''Note''': All figures above reflect weapons doing MAXIMUM damage. Actual damage dealt is between 50% to 100% of the listed damage.		'''Note''': All figures above reflect weapons doing MAXIMUM damage. Actual damage dealt is between 50% to 100% of the listed damage.

Spike: Note that RoF basis is wrong

2009-11-04T15:20:41Z

Note that RoF basis is wrong

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 4 November 2009
Line 167:		Line 167:

	</table>		</table>

			'''Warning''': The Rate of Fire basis of this table is probably wrong in significant ways. See [[Talk:UFO_Interception#Observed_Rates_of_Fire]]. This, in turn, means most other computed values on this table are wrong. It also casts doubts on the conclusions below.

	'''Note''': All figures above reflect weapons doing MAXIMUM damage. Actual damage dealt is between 50% to 100% of the listed damage.		'''Note''': All figures above reflect weapons doing MAXIMUM damage. Actual damage dealt is between 50% to 100% of the listed damage.

Hobbes at 13:47, 4 November 2009

2009-11-04T13:47:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 4 November 2009
Line 224:		Line 224:
	* [[Craft]]		* [[Craft]]
	[[Category: Data tables]]		[[Category: Data tables]]
	~~[[Category: Crafts]]~~

Spike: /* Observations & Conclusions */ updated with more Laser Cannon rah-rah; - and an ingenious method to test air combat

2009-07-02T18:54:45Z

Observations & Conclusions: updated with more Laser Cannon rah-rah; - and an ingenious method to test air combat

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 2 July 2009
Line 190:		Line 190:
	==Observations & Conclusions==		==Observations & Conclusions==
	*With the conventional weapons, there is an elegant trade-off between range and firepower, vs payload.		*With the conventional weapons, there is an elegant trade-off between range and firepower, vs payload.
	*[[Laser Cannon]] ~~Conclusion~~		*[[Stingray]]
			**There is not much point to this weapon, apart from the fact that you start the game with a free stock of them. The slightly higher total payload does not really compensate for the lower firepower and much lower first-volley lethality. As most Commanders attest, Avalanche is the way to go. The Stingray may have a niche role in shooting down [[Small Scout#Tactics for Hunting Small Scouts\|Small Scouts]] early in the game. Apart from that, upgrade.
			*[[Laser Cannon]]
	**Except for range and price, the Laser Cannon is superior to conventional weapons.		**Except for range and price, the Laser Cannon is superior to conventional weapons.
	**~~Therefore~~ the Laser Cannon is a good choice for an Aggressive engagement.		**And as to price, the Laser Cannon is free to operate, unlike the conventional weapons and the Fusion Ball Launcher.
			**It has nearly double the firepower of the Stingray, 50% more than the Avalanche.
			**It has ten times the total payload of the Avalanche.
			***(Both Avalanche- and Stingray-armed aircraft will struggle to bring down large UFOs, due to their small total payload).
			**The range difference compared to the Stingray is insignificant. But not when compared to the Avalanche.
			**In conclusion, the Laser Cannon is a good choice for an Aggressive engagement, and arguably a better general purpose weapon than Avalanches, as long as you can tolerate a bit of damage to your aircraft fleet.
	*[[Fusion Ball Launcher]]		*[[Fusion Ball Launcher]]
	** The Fusion Ball Launcher has the greatest standoff range and power per hit		** The Fusion Ball Launcher has the greatest standoff range and power per hit
Line 201:		Line 208:
	**The Stingray loses 17%.		**The Stingray loses 17%.
	*Of course the "cost" of downing a UFO will generally be small in proportion to the "value" of that downed UFO. Bean counters beware!		*Of course the "cost" of downing a UFO will generally be small in proportion to the "value" of that downed UFO. Bean counters beware!
	*It would be interesting (and easy) to calculate the cost of damage sustained by aircraft. It would then be possible to put an economic value on stand-off capability.		*It would be interesting (and easy) to calculate the cost of damage sustained by aircraft. It would then be possible to put an economic value on stand-off capability.
			*It would also be interesting to measure the time taken to close to short range, in order to calculate the damage that would sustained. This could be done by:
			**Equipping a craft with one test weapon and one magic weapon.
			**The magic weapon is a modified Cannon (or Laser Cannon, if the test weapon is a Cannon)
			**The magic weapon is hacked to do zero damage and/or have zero accuracy
			**The magic weapon is hacked to have its range be greater than or equal to the maximum range of an aerial engagement (100km?), so it starts firing straight away (but not so it changes the starting engagement distance).
			**You then use the ammo count on the magic weapon as a timer, ticking off 2 game seconds per volley (or 4 seconds if using a magic Laser Cannon)
			**Note the ammo count when the second weapon, the test weapon, begins firing
			**Huzzah! You have now deduced the time required for the test weapon to enter firing range
			**You can now calculate minimum, average and maximum damage sustained whilst closing to firing range
			**Now repeat the test for Cautious, Standard and Aggressive modes & see if it makes any difference.

	=See Also=		=See Also=

NKF: Note is probably best moved right next to the table. Bolded key listings and indented and grouped related items in sumary/conclusions

2009-03-28T09:31:00Z

Note is probably best moved right next to the table. Bolded key listings and indented and grouped related items in sumary/conclusions

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:31, 28 March 2009
Line 168:		Line 168:
	</table>		</table>

			'''Note''': All figures above reflect weapons doing MAXIMUM damage. Actual damage dealt is between 50% to 100% of the listed damage.

	<u>Key:</u>		<u>Key:</u>
	*Cost is for the weapon system alone, not including the aircraft, hangar and any Elerium to operate it		*'''Cost''' is for the weapon system alone, not including the aircraft, hangar and any Elerium to operate it
	*Firepower = average damage rate dealt per 60s (or until ammo exhausted)		*'''Firepower''' = average damage rate dealt per 60s (or until ammo exhausted)
	*$/Firepower = cost of the weapon system per unit of Firepower		*'''$/Firepower''' = cost of the weapon system per unit of Firepower
	*Payload = total average damage dealt if entire ammo load can be fired, if each shot were to do 100% damage... to get the actual average damage dealt, multiply this figure by 75%.		*'''Payload''' = total average damage dealt if entire ammo load can be fired, if each shot were to do 100% damage... to get the actual average damage dealt, multiply this figure by 75%.
	*$/Payload = cost of the weapon system per unit of Payload		*'''$/Payload''' = cost of the weapon system per unit of Payload
	*$/Ammo rate = cost of ammo expended per 60s (same time frame as Firepower measurement)		*'''$/Ammo rate''' = cost of ammo expended per 60s (same time frame as Firepower measurement)
	*$Ammo/Dmg = cost of ammo expended per unit of average damage dealt		*'''$Ammo/Dmg''' = cost of ammo expended per unit of average damage dealt


	~~<u>~~Notes~~:</u>~~		==Notes==
	*Costs are the higher of: sale price (i.e. opportunity cost) or complete manufacturing cost from "XCOM_Profits.xls"		*Costs are the higher of: sale price (i.e. opportunity cost) or complete manufacturing cost from "XCOM_Profits.xls"
	*Damage, cost etc listed here is per single weapon; typically they will be mounted in pairs.		*Damage, cost etc listed here is per single weapon; typically they will be mounted in pairs.
Line 185:		Line 186:
	*Apparently the combat mode (Cautious etc) affects the firing rate. This is not modeled here.		*Apparently the combat mode (Cautious etc) affects the firing rate. This is not modeled here.
	*"Last shot misses" bug is not modeled here; assumes craft is Aggressive or switches to Aggressive for last shot		*"Last shot misses" bug is not modeled here; assumes craft is Aggressive or switches to Aggressive for last shot
	*All figures above reflect each weapon hit doing MAXIMUM damage... in reality, each shot hits for between 50% to 100% of listed damage.

	~~<u>~~Observations & Conclusions~~:</u>~~
			==Observations & Conclusions==
	*With the conventional weapons, there is an elegant trade-off between range and firepower, vs payload.		*With the conventional weapons, there is an elegant trade-off between range and firepower, vs payload.
	*~~The~~ Laser Cannon is ~~costlier, but~~ superior to~~, all the~~ conventional weapons ~~- except for range~~.		*[[Laser Cannon]] Conclusion
	*Therefore the Laser Cannon is a good choice for an Aggressive~~, non-standoff~~ engagement.		**Except for range and price, the Laser Cannon is superior to conventional weapons.
	*The Fusion Ball Launcher is a cost-inefficient and ~~relatively weak weapon, apart from its standoff range~~.		**Therefore the Laser Cannon is a good choice for an Aggressive engagement.
	*Payload may be more important than Firepower in situations where an important large UFO target is attacked with limited resources.		*[[Fusion Ball Launcher]]
	*Fusion Ball Launcher is the worst-impacted ~~by the "last shot misses" bug,~~ losing 50% of it's payload. The Avalanche loses 33% ~~and the~~ Stingray loses 17%.		** The Fusion Ball Launcher has the greatest standoff range and power per hit
			** It is cost-inefficient to maintain and has a low payload. Payload may be more important than Firepower in situations where an important large UFO target is attacked with limited resources.
			* Weapons impacted by the ''last shot'' bug where the ship pulls out of range when the last shot is fired:
			**The Fusion Ball Launcher is the worst-impacted losing 50% of it's payload.
			**The Avalanche loses 33%
			**The Stingray loses 17%.
	*Of course the "cost" of downing a UFO will generally be small in proportion to the "value" of that downed UFO. Bean counters beware!		*Of course the "cost" of downing a UFO will generally be small in proportion to the "value" of that downed UFO. Bean counters beware!
	*It would be interesting (and easy) to calculate the cost of damage sustained by aircraft. It would then be possible to put an economic value on stand-off capability.		*It would be interesting (and easy) to calculate the cost of damage sustained by aircraft. It would then be possible to put an economic value on stand-off capability.

Jasonred: Er... should the table be editted for the proper figures? Should there be another column, or is this footnote enough?

2009-03-24T21:45:06Z

Er... should the table be editted for the proper figures? Should there be another column, or is this footnote enough?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 24 March 2009
Line 173:		Line 173:
	*Firepower = average damage rate dealt per 60s (or until ammo exhausted)		*Firepower = average damage rate dealt per 60s (or until ammo exhausted)
	*$/Firepower = cost of the weapon system per unit of Firepower		*$/Firepower = cost of the weapon system per unit of Firepower
	*Payload = total average damage dealt if entire ammo load can be fired		*Payload = total average damage dealt if entire ammo load can be fired, if each shot were to do 100% damage... to get the actual average damage dealt, multiply this figure by 75%.
	*$/Payload = cost of the weapon system per unit of Payload		*$/Payload = cost of the weapon system per unit of Payload
	*$/Ammo rate = cost of ammo expended per 60s (same time frame as Firepower measurement)		*$/Ammo rate = cost of ammo expended per 60s (same time frame as Firepower measurement)

Jasonred at 09:34, 19 March 2009

2009-03-19T09:34:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:34, 19 March 2009
Line 193:		Line 193:
	*The Fusion Ball Launcher is a cost-inefficient and relatively weak weapon, apart from its standoff range.		*The Fusion Ball Launcher is a cost-inefficient and relatively weak weapon, apart from its standoff range.
	*Payload may be more important than Firepower in situations where an important large UFO target is attacked with limited resources.		*Payload may be more important than Firepower in situations where an important large UFO target is attacked with limited resources.
	*Fusion Ball Launcher ~~and Avalanche are~~ worst-impacted by the "last shot misses" bug.		*Fusion Ball Launcher is the worst-impacted by the "last shot misses" bug, losing 50% of it's payload. The Avalanche loses 33% and the Stingray loses 17%.
	*Of course the "cost" of downing a UFO will generally be small in proportion to the "value" of that downed UFO. Bean counters beware!		*Of course the "cost" of downing a UFO will generally be small in proportion to the "value" of that downed UFO. Bean counters beware!
	*It would be interesting (and easy) to calculate the cost of damage sustained by aircraft. It would then be possible to put an economic value on stand-off capability.		*It would be interesting (and easy) to calculate the cost of damage sustained by aircraft. It would then be possible to put an economic value on stand-off capability.


	=See Also=		=See Also=

Jasonred: AHA!!!!

2009-03-19T09:21:09Z

AHA!!!!

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:21, 19 March 2009
Line 185:		Line 185:
	*Apparently the combat mode (Cautious etc) affects the firing rate. This is not modeled here.		*Apparently the combat mode (Cautious etc) affects the firing rate. This is not modeled here.
	*"Last shot misses" bug is not modeled here; assumes craft is Aggressive or switches to Aggressive for last shot		*"Last shot misses" bug is not modeled here; assumes craft is Aggressive or switches to Aggressive for last shot
			*All figures above reflect each weapon hit doing MAXIMUM damage... in reality, each shot hits for between 50% to 100% of listed damage.

	<u>Observations & Conclusions:</u>		<u>Observations & Conclusions:</u>