Talk:Silacoid - Revision history

Gyrobot at 03:59, 23 September 2009

2009-09-23T03:59:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:59, 23 September 2009
Line 66:		Line 66:

	Er, wait... suddenly occured to me. Do the silacoids serve as barbecue or Hot Plate style cooking? I mean... it's cooking meat on hot stone surface, right? [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 20:14, 3 April 2009 (EDT)		Er, wait... suddenly occured to me. Do the silacoids serve as barbecue or Hot Plate style cooking? I mean... it's cooking meat on hot stone surface, right? [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 20:14, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

			*Two fold actually: harvesting of all minerals and alloys in the area and to consume all humans and wildlife. Since the mutons are so good at killing, these things are their ground holders

Jasonred: /* Their true purpose */

2009-04-04T00:14:03Z

Their true purpose

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 4 April 2009
Line 64:		Line 64:

	Ever wonder if the seemingly harmless Silacoids are the ''real'' power behind the invasion? Controlling Ethereals with the smell of delicious steak? Don't know if this is bad form but FIRST EDIT. --[[User:Cadmus\|Cadmus]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)		Ever wonder if the seemingly harmless Silacoids are the ''real'' power behind the invasion? Controlling Ethereals with the smell of delicious steak? Don't know if this is bad form but FIRST EDIT. --[[User:Cadmus\|Cadmus]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

			Er, wait... suddenly occured to me. Do the silacoids serve as barbecue or Hot Plate style cooking? I mean... it's cooking meat on hot stone surface, right? [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 20:14, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Cadmus: /* Their true purpose */

2009-04-03T23:12:40Z

Their true purpose

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 3 April 2009
Line 62:		Line 62:

	But due to clerical error, Silacoids don't get to attend barbecue... i mean Harvester missions. .. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 08:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)		But due to clerical error, Silacoids don't get to attend barbecue... i mean Harvester missions. .. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 08:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

			Ever wonder if the seemingly harmless Silacoids are the ''real'' power behind the invasion? Controlling Ethereals with the smell of delicious steak? Don't know if this is bad form but FIRST EDIT. --[[User:Cadmus\|Cadmus]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Jasonred: /* Their true purpose */

2009-04-03T12:31:51Z

Their true purpose

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 3 April 2009
Line 60:		Line 60:

	Very few people know this, but the Silacoid wasn't originally designed as a weapon. The hungry aliens (especially the meat-loving Mutons) wanted to bring a ''portable barbecue'' on their Harvester missions. See also [[Mutton]]. :) --[[User:JellyfishGreen\|JellyfishGreen]] 06:42, 3 April 2009 (EDT)		Very few people know this, but the Silacoid wasn't originally designed as a weapon. The hungry aliens (especially the meat-loving Mutons) wanted to bring a ''portable barbecue'' on their Harvester missions. See also [[Mutton]]. :) --[[User:JellyfishGreen\|JellyfishGreen]] 06:42, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

			But due to clerical error, Silacoids don't get to attend barbecue... i mean Harvester missions. .. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 08:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

JellyfishGreen: New section: Their true purpose

2009-04-03T10:42:05Z

New section: Their true purpose

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 3 April 2009
Line 56:		Line 56:

	:Nods... sounds like the best assumption to me, for simplicity's sake. One could've tried a bunch of modeled results from various sides along the lines of what I did, but it has the disadvantages that 1) it'd be arbitrary and challenging to decide how the facings are (randomly) hit, 2) the results are little less straightforward to understand (simlicity is a virtue), while 3) of course, it'd be a lot more work. Front armor is fine... sort of a worst case scenario, while at the same time, the most important time to know how good your guns are (while the target is facing you and may fire back). -[[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 17:53, 3 March 2009 (CST)		:Nods... sounds like the best assumption to me, for simplicity's sake. One could've tried a bunch of modeled results from various sides along the lines of what I did, but it has the disadvantages that 1) it'd be arbitrary and challenging to decide how the facings are (randomly) hit, 2) the results are little less straightforward to understand (simlicity is a virtue), while 3) of course, it'd be a lot more work. Front armor is fine... sort of a worst case scenario, while at the same time, the most important time to know how good your guns are (while the target is facing you and may fire back). -[[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 17:53, 3 March 2009 (CST)

			== Their true purpose ==

			Very few people know this, but the Silacoid wasn't originally designed as a weapon. The hungry aliens (especially the meat-loving Mutons) wanted to bring a ''portable barbecue'' on their Harvester missions. See also [[Mutton]]. :) --[[User:JellyfishGreen\|JellyfishGreen]] 06:42, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

MikeTheRed at 23:53, 3 March 2009

2009-03-03T23:53:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 3 March 2009
Line 54:		Line 54:

	Thank you! For armour facing for direct fire weapons, I just use the worst case - front armour. I wondered long and hard if I should use the 'modal' value which would probably be side armour. Without producing 3-4 sets of stats, there's no easy answer. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:14, 2 March 2009 (CST)		Thank you! For armour facing for direct fire weapons, I just use the worst case - front armour. I wondered long and hard if I should use the 'modal' value which would probably be side armour. Without producing 3-4 sets of stats, there's no easy answer. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:14, 2 March 2009 (CST)

			:Nods... sounds like the best assumption to me, for simplicity's sake. One could've tried a bunch of modeled results from various sides along the lines of what I did, but it has the disadvantages that 1) it'd be arbitrary and challenging to decide how the facings are (randomly) hit, 2) the results are little less straightforward to understand (simlicity is a virtue), while 3) of course, it'd be a lot more work. Front armor is fine... sort of a worst case scenario, while at the same time, the most important time to know how good your guns are (while the target is facing you and may fire back). -[[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 17:53, 3 March 2009 (CST)

Spike: reply to MTR

2009-03-03T01:14:07Z

reply to MTR

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:14, 3 March 2009
Line 52:		Line 52:

	:-[[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 18:19, 2 March 2009 (CST)		:-[[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 18:19, 2 March 2009 (CST)

			Thank you! For armour facing for direct fire weapons, I just use the worst case - front armour. I wondered long and hard if I should use the 'modal' value which would probably be side armour. Without producing 3-4 sets of stats, there's no easy answer. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:14, 2 March 2009 (CST)

MikeTheRed at 00:19, 3 March 2009

2009-03-03T00:19:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 3 March 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	RocketSm 227		RocketSm 227
	Stun Bmb 258		Stun Bmb 258
	LaserR 275		LaserR 275
	Grenade 319		Grenade 319
	PlasmaP 325		PlasmaP 325
Line 30:		Line 30:
	HC - AP 731		HC - AP 731
	AC - AP 1381		AC - AP 1381
	Rifle 9120		Rifle 9120
	Pistol 177840		Pistol 177840

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 21:21, 27 February 2009 (CST)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 21:21, 27 February 2009 (CST)

	---		----


	:Very cool, Spike! Can you say more about your modelling or method? All explosives are presumed to be at ground zero, yes?		:Very cool, Spike! Can you say more about your modelling or method? All explosives are presumed to be at ground zero, yes?
Line 49:		Line 48:

	[[User:Spike#Tactical_Firepower_Model\|Model Description]]		[[User:Spike#Tactical_Firepower_Model\|Model Description]]

			:Nice! I really like how you used % TUs for FA 50 - it's easier for seeing what will take a target down faster (or slower) than [[Kill_Modelling\|my]] stuff. I should've revisited my model to post results for when you ''want'' to kill something (not train experience), but I doubt I'll ever get around to it (sigh). That's a lot of work, in your spreadsheet... how did you handle the issue of whether front, side, or rear armor was hit? (for non-explosives)

			:-[[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 18:19, 2 March 2009 (CST)

Spike: Moved discussion of Model. Monospaced text as per MTR's suggestion.

2009-02-28T12:55:22Z

Moved discussion of Model. Monospaced text as per MTR's suggestion.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:55, 28 February 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:
	NB you don't really want to kill Silacoids, you want to use them for reaction fire and target practice, using Snap or Aimed fire with AC-Incendiary rounds that don't harm them at all. Or you could use Pistols - on average it will take nearly 2,000 soldier x turns of firing before the Silacoid is put out of its misery by Pistol fire. You'll almost certainly run out of ammo before then.		NB you don't really want to kill Silacoids, you want to use them for reaction fire and target practice, using Snap or Aimed fire with AC-Incendiary rounds that don't harm them at all. Or you could use Pistols - on average it will take nearly 2,000 soldier x turns of firing before the Silacoid is put out of its misery by Pistol fire. You'll almost certainly run out of ammo before then.

	Blast Bmb 46		Blast Bmb 46
	HE Pack(XCU) 70		HE Pack(XCU) 70
	HvyPlas 76		HvyPlas 76
	PlasmaR 132		PlasmaR 132
	HE Pack 132		HE Pack 132
	HvyLas (XCU) 133		HvyLas (XCU) 133
	Stun Rod 139		Stun Rod 139
	Alien Grd 164		Alien Grd 164
	RocketLg 165		RocketLg 165
	AC - HE 201		AC - HE 201
	Prox Grd 217		Prox Grd 217
	HC - HE 218		HC - HE 218
	RocketSm 227		RocketSm 227
	Stun Bmb 258		Stun Bmb 258
	LaserR 275		LaserR 275
	Grenade 319		Grenade 319
	PlasmaP 325		PlasmaP 325
	HvyLas 355		HvyLas 355
	LaserP 708		LaserP 708
	HC - AP 731		HC - AP 731
	AC - AP 1381		AC - AP 1381
	Rifle 9120		Rifle 9120
	Pistol 177840		Pistol 177840

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 21:21, 27 February 2009 (CST)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 21:21, 27 February 2009 (CST)

			---


	:Very cool, Spike! Can you say more about your modelling or method? All explosives are presumed to be at ground zero, yes?		:Very cool, Spike! Can you say more about your modelling or method? All explosives are presumed to be at ground zero, yes?
Line 41:		Line 44:
	:P.S. There's no telling what wikis or browsers will do with Tab characters - suggest using spaces instead.		:P.S. There's no telling what wikis or browsers will do with Tab characters - suggest using spaces instead.

	Thanks Mike. Yes sorry I should've put a description. In a nutshell, I figure out the average armour-adjusted damage per direct hit (average of min + max, adjusted for % of range that is zero), then multiply that by the average # of direct hits per 100% TUs (assuming Firing Accuracy = 50). I then divide the target Health by the resulting value, to obtain the "%TUs per kill".		Thanks Mike. Yes sorry I should've put a description.

	If your soldiers have a better average FA, it all scales linearly. So if you have FA=100 just cut (improve) the values by half. I picked FA=50 as its a typical starting value, and it was particularly the starting weapons I was interested in.

	~~I tried lots of different "figures of merit" for weapons but I like this one best.~~

	~~Yes all HE is a direct hit. For 4-square targets I add the reduced, armour-adjusted damage on the other 3 squares.~~

	~~The very low (good) average values, such as for Heavy Plasma, will be very volatile around the average. The high (bad) numbers will be more consistent.~~

	This Figure of Merit probably works best when the number is in the range 25% - 75%. Below that level, there is high volatilty and also I may not have accounted for overkill (minimum penetrating damage > Health) properly. Above that level, I have not accounted for reload time, nor "turn rounding errors" - such as: you can't burst-fire an AC 2.5 times a turn, you can only burst-fire it twice.

	Another thing to note about this metric is that it is accuracy-weighted, so it assumes a non-trivial "firing problem". For situations such as point-blank where accuracy is not an issue, the rankings will be very different. I'll work on a different metric for point-blank.

	Tomorrow I will upload the latest version of my Firepower spreadsheet, which generated these rankings. It allows you to toggle the "turn rounding" on or off. It would also be good to have others check my assumptions!

	~~One more point:~~ the ~~number given is~~ for ~~whichever firing mode (auto, snap or aimed) gives the highest value. I should probably list what the best mode is!~~		Description of the model used for Weapon Rankings has been moved to here:

	[[User:Spike\|~~Spike~~]] ~~22:22, 27 February 2009 (CST)~~		[[User:Spike#Tactical_Firepower_Model\|Model Description]]

Spike: /* Weapon Rankings Vs Silacoids */ extra note on firimg mode

2009-02-28T04:35:52Z

Weapon Rankings Vs Silacoids: extra note on firimg mode

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:35, 28 February 2009
Line 56:		Line 56:

	Tomorrow I will upload the latest version of my Firepower spreadsheet, which generated these rankings. It allows you to toggle the "turn rounding" on or off. It would also be good to have others check my assumptions!		Tomorrow I will upload the latest version of my Firepower spreadsheet, which generated these rankings. It allows you to toggle the "turn rounding" on or off. It would also be good to have others check my assumptions!

			One more point: the number given is for whichever firing mode (auto, snap or aimed) gives the highest value. I should probably list what the best mode is!

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 22:22, 27 February 2009 (CST)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 22:22, 27 February 2009 (CST)