Craft Comparison Table - Revision history

Magic9mushroom: skyranger airtime wrong

2019-12-27T05:00:06Z

skyranger airtime wrong

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:00, 27 December 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<td>760</td>		<td>760</td>
	<td>13,500</td>		<td>13,500</td>
	<td>~~32h50m~~ / 82h30m<sup>4</sup></td>		<td>35h30m / 82h30m<sup>4</sup></td>
	<td>1,500</td>		<td>1,500</td>
	<td>None</td>		<td>None</td>

Magic9mushroom: Putting a cash number on engineer-hours is misleading (what you're really losing is the ability to have those engineers build something else), and of the various bad measures the one used here severely undersells the cost. Re-jigging analysis later.

2018-07-22T04:27:56Z

Putting a cash number on engineer-hours is misleading (what you're really losing is the ability to have those engineers build *something else*), and of the various bad measures the one used here severely undersells the cost. Re-jigging analysis later.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:27, 22 July 2018
Line 96:		Line 96:
	\|+ Costs of craftable aircrafts		\|+ Costs of craftable aircrafts
	\|-		\|-
	\| \|\| cash ~~\|\| labour~~ \|\| alloys \|\| power \|\| navigation \|\| total		\| \|\| cash \|\| alloys \|\| power \|\| navigation \|\| total materials
	\|-		\|-
	\| Firestorm \|\| 400k ~~\|\| 500k~~ \|\| 423k \|\| 250k \|\| 80k \|\| ~~1653k~~		\| Firestorm \|\| 400k \|\| 423k \|\| 250k \|\| 80k \|\| 1153k
	\|-		\|-
	\| Lighting \|\| 600k ~~\|\| 630k~~ \|\| 553k \|\| 250k \|\| 80k \|\| ~~2113k~~		\| Lighting \|\| 600k \|\| 553k \|\| 250k \|\| 80k \|\| 1483k
	\|-		\|-
	\| Avenger \|\| 900k ~~\|\| 1250k~~ \|\| 780k \|\| 500k \|\| 80k \|\| ~~3500k~~		\| Avenger \|\| 900k \|\| 780k \|\| 500k \|\| 80k \|\| 2260k
	\|}		\|}

	~~This means that manufacturing a Firestorm and selling your Interceptor pays for itself in under 3 months. (an existing interceptor costs 600k a month= 1800k in 3 months)~~		In terms of combat effectiveness, (vs Battleships) an Avenger has exactly the same damage output as a Firestorm, but has almost 2.5 times as much health. The Avenger also costs slightly under twice as much and almost 2.5 times as long to build. In actual combat with a Battleship, on average, 4 Avengers will receive exactly the same amount of damage as 4 Firestorms, aka they are equally effective in combat, when engaging with 4 craft at once. And 4 Firestorms will fare better than 2 Avengers. In effect, this means that dollar for dollar, building 10 Firestorms is cheaper and more effective than building 4 Avengers. However, EACH avenger uses less fuel than 1 Firestorm, due to shorter airtime. Furthermore, 10 firestorms require 10 hangar.
	However, if you do not already have an interceptor in the hangar, manufacturing a firestorm would effectively pay for itself in 2 months. (An new interceptor costs 600k+600k the first month, and 600k a month henceforth)

	~~A Lightning arguably pays for itself in 1-2 months (500+600...500+600) since 1 Lightning can more or less do the job of 1 Interceptor + 1 Skyranger.~~

	In short, X-com saves a LOT of money by manufacturing craft. The only drawback is Hybrid craft cost a lot of Elerium... 100 Elerium a month is $500,000 a month. So if your ships are spending a lot of time in the air, an Interceptor might be better than a Firestorm after all.

	In terms of combat effectiveness, (vs Battleships) an Avenger has exactly the same damage output as a Firestorm, but has almost 2.5 times as much health. The Avenger also costs slightly ~~over~~ twice as much and almost 2.5 times as long to build. In actual combat with a Battleship, on average, 4 Avengers will receive exactly the same amount of damage as 4 Firestorms, aka they are equally effective in combat, when engaging with 4 craft at once. And 4 Firestorms will fare better than 2 Avengers. In effect, this means that dollar for dollar, building 10 Firestorms is cheaper and more effective than building 4 Avengers. However, EACH avenger uses less fuel than 1 Firestorm, due to shorter airtime. Furthermore, 10 firestorms require 10 hangar.

	In short, if you have enough resources, the Avenger is the better choice, but if you are short on resources, and for some reason you feel an uncontrollable urge to shoot down battleships (I do not know why you would do so), a fleet of Firestorms is better.		In short, if you have enough resources, the Avenger is the better choice, but if you are short on resources, and for some reason you feel an uncontrollable urge to shoot down battleships (I do not know why you would do so), a fleet of Firestorms is better.

Magic9mushroom: airtimes were overestimated

2018-07-22T03:51:43Z

airtimes were overestimated

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:51, 22 July 2018
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<td>760</td>		<td>760</td>
	<td>13,500</td>		<td>13,500</td>
	<td>~~35h40m~~ / ~~83h20m~~<sup>4</sup></td>		<td>32h50m / 82h30m<sup>4</sup></td>
	<td>1,500</td>		<td>1,500</td>
	<td>None</td>		<td>None</td>
Line 32:		Line 32:
	<td>2,100</td>		<td>2,100</td>
	<td>8,050</td>		<td>8,050</td>
	<td>~~7h50m~~ / ~~16h40m~~<sup>4</sup></td>		<td>7h30m / 15h50m<sup>4</sup></td>
	<td>1,000</td>		<td>1,000</td>
	<td>2</td>		<td>2</td>

NKF: Made new section for the craft comparison table

2018-02-22T08:28:30Z

Made new section for the craft comparison table

New page

<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable">
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}>
<th width="110">Craft</th>
<th>Speed (knots)</th>
<th width="120">Range (nm) 6</th>
<th>Air time</th>
<th width="80">Fuel</th>
<th width="100">Weapons</th>
<th width="90">Damage</th>
<th width="80">Cargo</th>
<th width="80">HWPs</th>
<th width="140">Cost/Rent ($)</th>
<th>Time (h)</th>
<th width="110">Destroyed Pnt.</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">[[Skyranger]]</td>
<td>760</td>
<td>13,500</td>
<td>35h40m / 83h20m4</td>
<td>1,500</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>150</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>500,0001</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>-200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">[[Interceptor]]</td>
<td>2,100</td>
<td>8,050</td>
<td>7h50m / 16h40m4</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>600,0001</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>-250</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">[[Firestorm]]</td>
<td>4,200</td>
<td>7,000</td>
<td>3h20m</td>
<td>205</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>500</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>400,0002</td>
<td>14,0003</td>
<td>-250</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">[[Lightning]]</td>
<td>3,100</td>
<td>7,750</td>
<td>5h</td>
<td>305</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>800</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>600,0002</td>
<td>18,0003</td>
<td>-300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">[[Avenger]]</td>
<td>5,400</td>
<td>27,000</td>
<td>10h</td>
<td>605</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1,200</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>900,0002</td>
<td>34,0003</td>
<td>-400</td>
</tr>
</table>

1 This cost is paid upon ordering and also monthly as rental fee, charged at midnight on the first day of each month. 
2 This is only the up-front cost. These craft also require a number of [[Alien Alloys]], [[UFO Navigation]] and [[UFO Power Source]] to build, as well as engineers time and workshop space. 
3 Engineer man-hours to [[manufacture]]. 
4 Stationary (Patrolling) air time. Fuel consumption for conventional craft is decreased, allowing longer air time. 
5 Elerium-based fuel: every fuel unit is worth 10 minutes of fly time, and 1 [[Elerium-115]] unit is consumed every 5 fuel units. 
6 Range is the maximum distance from base a given craft can reach before fuel (50%) requires it to come back. Thus, maximum ''travel length'' of a craft is actually ''twice'' its range. 

{| border="1"
|+ Costs of craftable aircrafts
|-
| || cash || labour || alloys || power || navigation || total
|-
| Firestorm || 400k || 500k || 423k || 250k || 80k || 1653k
|-
| Lighting || 600k || 630k || 553k || 250k || 80k || 2113k
|-
| Avenger || 900k || 1250k || 780k || 500k || 80k || 3500k
|}

This means that manufacturing a Firestorm and selling your Interceptor pays for itself in under 3 months. (an existing interceptor costs 600k a month= 1800k in 3 months)
However, if you do not already have an interceptor in the hangar, manufacturing a firestorm would effectively pay for itself in 2 months. (An new interceptor costs 600k+600k the first month, and 600k a month henceforth)

A Lightning arguably pays for itself in 1-2 months (500+600...500+600) since 1 Lightning can more or less do the job of 1 Interceptor + 1 Skyranger.

In short, X-com saves a LOT of money by manufacturing craft. The only drawback is Hybrid craft cost a lot of Elerium... 100 Elerium a month is $500,000 a month. So if your ships are spending a lot of time in the air, an Interceptor might be better than a Firestorm after all.

In terms of combat effectiveness, (vs Battleships) an Avenger has exactly the same damage output as a Firestorm, but has almost 2.5 times as much health. The Avenger also costs slightly over twice as much and almost 2.5 times as long to build. In actual combat with a Battleship, on average, 4 Avengers will receive exactly the same amount of damage as 4 Firestorms, aka they are equally effective in combat, when engaging with 4 craft at once. And 4 Firestorms will fare better than 2 Avengers. In effect, this means that dollar for dollar, building 10 Firestorms is cheaper and more effective than building 4 Avengers. However, EACH avenger uses less fuel than 1 Firestorm, due to shorter airtime. Furthermore, 10 firestorms require 10 hangar.

In short, if you have enough resources, the Avenger is the better choice, but if you are short on resources, and for some reason you feel an uncontrollable urge to shoot down battleships (I do not know why you would do so), a fleet of Firestorms is better.

==See Also==
{{Craft Navbar}}

[[Category:Craft]]

Craft Comparison Table - Revision history

Magic9mushroom: skyranger airtime wrong

Magic9mushroom: Putting a cash number on engineer-hours is misleading (what you're really losing is the ability to have those engineers build *something else*), and of the various bad measures the one used here severely undersells the cost. Re-jigging analysis later.

Magic9mushroom: airtimes were overestimated

NKF: Made new section for the craft comparison table

Magic9mushroom: Putting a cash number on engineer-hours is misleading (what you're really losing is the ability to have those engineers build something else), and of the various bad measures the one used here severely undersells the cost. Re-jigging analysis later.