Difference between revisions of "Aircraft Firepower Table"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Er... should the table be editted for the proper figures? Should there be another column, or is this footnote enough?) |
m (Note is probably best moved right next to the table. Bolded key listings and indented and grouped related items in sumary/conclusions) |
||
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 |
− | + | ==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 | ||
− | |||
− | + | ||
+ | ==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 |
− | *Therefore the Laser Cannon is a good choice for an Aggressive | + | **Except for range and price, the Laser Cannon is superior to conventional weapons. |
− | *The Fusion Ball Launcher is | + | **Therefore the Laser Cannon is a good choice for an Aggressive engagement. |
− | + | *[[Fusion Ball Launcher]] | |
− | *Fusion Ball Launcher is the worst-impacted | + | ** 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. |
Revision as of 09:31, 28 March 2009
Armament | Cost $000s |
$Shot | Base Damage |
Range (km) |
Accuracy | Reload Time(s) |
Shots | Fire- power |
$ / Fire- power |
Payload | $ / Payload |
Ammo $Rate |
Ammo $/Dmg |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cannon | $30 | $25 | 10 | 10 | 25% | 2 | 200 | 75 | $400 | 500 | $60 | $744 | $10 |
Stingray | $16 | $3,000 | 70 | 30 | 70% | 15 | 6 | 196 | $82 | 294 | $54 | $12,000 | $61 |
Avalanche | $17 | $9,000 | 100 | 60 | 80% | 20 | 3 | 240 | $71 | 240 | $71 | $27,000 | $113 |
Laser Cannon | $211 | $0 | 70 | 21 | 35% | 4 | 99 | 368 | $574 | 2426 | $87 | $0 | $0 |
Laser Cannon (XCU) | $283 | $0 | 35 | 35 | 35% | 4 | 99 | 184 | $1540 | 1213 | $234 | $0 | $0 |
Plasma Beam | $319 | $0 | 140 | 52 | 50% | 6 | 100 | 700 | $456 | 7000 | $46 | $0 | $0 |
Plasma Beam (XCU) | $698 | $0 | 140 | 52 | 50% | 6 | 100 | 700 | $997 | 7000 | $100 | $0 | $0 |
Fusion Ball Launcher | $281 | $69,000 | 230 | 65 | 100% | 25 | 2 | 460 | $611 | 460 | $611 | $138,000 | $300 |
Note: All figures above reflect weapons doing MAXIMUM damage. Actual damage dealt is between 50% to 100% of the listed damage.
Key:
- 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 = 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 = cost of the weapon system per unit of Payload
- $/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
Notes
- 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.
- Accuracy figures differ from in-game UFOPaedia but are from code inspection (UFOPaedia.org)
- 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
Observations & Conclusions
- With the conventional weapons, there is an elegant trade-off between range and firepower, vs payload.
- Laser Cannon Conclusion
- 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.
- Fusion Ball Launcher
- 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!
- 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.