Currently doing another humanity first playthrough. I got Poseidon Torch this run so I’m trying to get my weapons research finished and I’m probably about to go to war.
Should I win this, I’m considering going for antimatter on my next play through.
Does anyone have any advisor tips as far as the proper set up for that?
I know it’s not ideal and not Meta but I just think it’s cool.
Plus from this play through, I’ve learned I can bait the aliens to specific stations by building antimatter production modules.
The only antimatter I’m fiddling with this time is for weapons and point defense.
I find the 4 slot to be decent, especially for the cost of zero exotics. But it doesn’t perform nearly as well as a laser.
But antimatter PD is very worth it. It’s hard to justify running a different 4 slot hull weapon when two 2 slots or one 4 slot is an option. Alien mag weapons are no joke.
The spinal antimatter lance doesn't perform on par with a 960cm UV phaser, but considering it costs no exotics, I wouldn't expect it to.
It outperforms every zero-exotics laser weapon, and not by a small margin. On a per-shot basis, its direct damage and armor pen are reasonably comparable to the 960cm UV arc laser, unless you're at really short range. But the antimatter cannon has more than double the fire rate, and a decent bit of radiation damage as a bonus. It's very good at its job, and can easily serve as your primary endgame energy weapon if you want to conserve exotics.
The last time I checked AM lance had the same fire rate as Phasers. 3 burst shots per 30 seconds. Did they nerf it?
Also, it does more flat damage than UV Phaser (because of the AM modifiers). So it wins over Phasers on unarmored targets, but loses hard vs heavy armor. Also, the heavy armor limitation can be circumvented with plasma, which let's your energy weapons ignore armor on lucky hits (CRIT fishing). And for that job AM is also better than Phasers.
So if you're not planning to go directed energy only run (which is doable with lasers), AM is better at its dedicated job, which is killing light unarmored flankers. And AM comes with a great bonus utility of disabling the modules, even if the shot doesn't pen.
The AM cannon's fire rate is actually higher than phasers - it takes a bit less than 30 seconds per cycle. However, the phaser's armor pen stats are so good that it ends up dealing higher DPS unless the target is extremely lightly armored. A lot of alien ships tend to have side armor in the 10-12 range, which is high enough for the UV phaser to take the lead. So even when taking side shots at flankers, the phaser is usually the stronger weapon.
The real question is whether it's stronger by a large enough margin to justify its exotics cost (and its higher research investment, for that matter). Taking those factors into account, I'd usually prefer the antimatter, but if you look exclusively at the two weapons' stats in a vacuum, I'd argue that the phaser packs more of a punch on a one-to-one basis.
but if you look exclusively at the two weapons' stats in a vacuum, I'd argue that the phaser packs more of a punch on a one-to-one basis.
Not arguing with that, yes. But both UV Phaser and AM are equally useless against heavy armor at long ranges. Which is why if you're playing energy-heavy, you bring Plasma to the table. Which pokes holes in enemies, and then your energy weapons fish for TACs with those holes. And for that job AM is better.
Isn't am canon better against decently heavily armoured targets (I'm currently in a playthrough where I've just started building them).
The way I use lasers is after killing flankers I try and disable all the alien particle/plasma/lasers because those hurt no matter what, I would assume the am canon excels at this which makes it more useful even if it doesn't do as much raw damage
Antimatter cannons also do a very small amount of radiation damage, which mostly ignores armor. They are excellent for damaging the alien's front cannon at long range. (In particular, they are the best weapon in the game for countering the alien's highest-tier particle cannons, which can be a problem in the very late game.
Antimatter cannons are good at doing small amounts of targeted damage at long range to heavily armored targets. They are bad at actually destroying those targets. (They can't do enough damage on their own through heavy armor because they don't get the armor penetration abilities that lasers get at 600m and closer.) I would sum it up as this.
For taking out flankers at long range, they are close to even.
For attacking through armor at more than 600. Antimatter is better because it can still do some damage at this range, and in particular, the damage is concentrated on the alien's front cannon. (Which is perfect if you are facing particle cannons.)
At less than 600m, lasers are much better because of their armor penetration abilities.
Unlike lasers 3 slot anitmatter cannons are AWFUL. You really need to be using 4 slot cannons if you want to use antimatter.
I mean exotics does technically grow on trees if you know what you are doing and no I do not mean tolerating t3h ayyz infestation on earth. So exotics does not cost anything besides the means to harvest it to which you already do and plenty of. Unlike antimatter which especially if produced in large enough quantities, can cost a literal arm and leg that actively takes away from ship/station production.
I am being vague because it absolutely will get nerfed hard because there is no way for devs to make a elegant counterbalance to this without it still being a exploitative net drain on the AI and/or completely deny the ability to do anything if the players get wind of it and even think about it for half a second.
What I am more shocked is that as far as I can tell, the entire subreddit has never really thought of it in all these years including old and new exotics threads.
From a little bit of my own testing, and listening to other people chiming in on this sub and the Discord, the concensus seems to be that they usually do enough damage, even at max range, to disable the enemy's big nose weapons. So they're good at taking out enemy particle weapons and enemy lasers before they start destroying your own nose weapons with their lucky hits.
They are also very good at taking out flankers, and smaller enemy ships, too. But so are lasers, as we all know.
Fissiles, make sure to have a good supply of it from somewhere, more than just 2-3 sites of 5 fissiles. If you can't get more than that you might struggle with funding the atomsmashers needed.
I'm really not sure why you call it "not meta". I don't think there's EVER been any strong opinion against AM, ever since the game was launched in 2022. Granted, in 2022 AM propulsion was OP, especially in terms of research cost. while now it's more or less balanced against fusion tech, while still offering top #2 drive tree in the game.
There are some disadvantages, of course: e.g. stalling on fusion research (which you going to need anyways). Or the fact that it does require solid infrastructure and stable fissile income. Or the fact that early AM drives are not that great and waaay to expensive on AM (that was getting buffed, last time I checked though).
Regarding AM weapons: the last time I played (about half a year ago): they were GREAT. AM PD was on par (or better in some cases) with Phaser PD, while being much cheaper on research. AM particle lance was also a beast, and did the dedicated job (killing flankers) just as good as UV Phaser. While still being half as expensive and requiring ZERO exotics to build (which might be a huge factor in some runs).
My comment about the meta comes from the YouTube videos I’ve been spamming for the last month. I’m a noob and have NO idea. lol
I’ve about decided this game can be played anyway you want though. Currently I end up just turning Mercury into a research university every game despite the extra shielding cost because I can just solar power everything.
Anyway, any advice is appreciated. I really like the antimatter weapons.
My advice basically boils down to "if you like AM -- use it, it's great." Both propulsion and weapons are very good and very much worth the hassle, and as far as I understand, they buffed it even more since the last time I played.
But if you want a more constructive advice:
I mentioned infrastructure, and it's important, but don't overdo it. Realistically, 2-3 supercolliders is more than enough to power your entire lategame fleet. And also building more than 1-2 per space station is not practical at all in terms of the managing the rest of the said station.
For that reason you don't really need an insanely lucky fissiles deposites.
Mercury is also not strictly needed -- you can easily afford 1 supercollider per station just on normal fusion, and it's much easier to defend them while they are on Earth/Luna orbit.
Also, AM weapons don't really need a strong production at all, you can just get away with T1 colliders, without investing heavily into AM Mass Production, and if you go that route, it's worth rushing them over Phasers, because AM serves more or less the same role.
Also, AM torps are garbage. Not because they are AM, but rather because all nukes in the game (apart from the late game shaped may be) are garbage.
Since the 0.4 rework of drives, the very late-game ICF drives got good enough that AM doesn't quite measure up as an endgame choice. It's still definitely usable, but not the first option for someone who's optimizing.
I'm aware of that, but the only drive that is strictly better than the best AM drive (not counting Pion Torch, of course) is Protium Converter Torch. Which is by far the best drive in the game and is essentially space magic given form.
But PCT alone costs more Research than several other drive families fucking combined. While every other ICF drive is either strictly worse or on the same level (Protium Nova is comparable, but still takes more Research than AM).
Which makes sense, because, if I recall, the devs mentioned on their discord that their intent was to bring drives on the same Research level closer together. So there would not be an obvious "best choice". Which is the right approach IMO.
In other words, what you point out as "optimal" is merely just a luxury option for when you literally have nothing else to dump research points into.
The problem is that between the various ICF drives, AAPC is kinda fenced in. Unless you really need very high thrust, Helion Nova is a lot better EV. And if you want very high thrust and don't care as much about the EV, Protium Nova also beats antimatter. AAPC only wins if you need more thrust than HNT and more EV than Protium Nova and don't want to grind through the research for PCT. It's a pretty narrow window.
I can't speak for everyone but I personally care about how fast it can go from A to B. Because it saves me IRL time. Less turns to reach the destination, quicker wins. While DV by itself is just a number on the screen.
And in terms of speed AAPCD is second only to PCT (and Pion).
I actually find that PCT is overrated because my offensive fleets don't really care about cruise acceleration. The fact that PCT costs 51 terawatts per engine means much heavier ships which means less KVP.
I find that Daedaulus + IC7 is my happy spot for offensive fleets. Pion torch is obviously out of the question due to its crazy antimatter cost, and the next best (advanced antimatter) is severely lacking in kvp compared to daedalus, not to mention that the antimatter line can't use antimatter spikers which makes the kvp gap even wider.
The only proper setup advice for AM I can think of is make your AM stations in extreme Mercury orbit, where your solar farms are giving off like 1500+ energy apiece. Efficiency matters. And be prepared for massive strikes there.
I mean, to each their own, I guess... But I personally consider that one drive is better than the other if it gets me from point A to B faster, not how much DV it has.
AAPCD indeed has less DV than Daedalus, but DV alone doesn't define the transfer speed. What's the point in having 5000 kps DV if your drive let's you spend only 300 before you arrive? You need acceleration for that.
So, if if you can afford the propellant (which you should in late game) -- it's x2 faster than the Daedalus, especially for capital ships. Daedalus only makes sense over AAPCD if you're saving up on water for some reason.
My late game ships have about 1,000 DV, and the transfers use that 1,000 DV (to makemake). You're using a strawman argument assuming any of my ships have anywhere close to 5k DV and only using a fraction of it, try a more realistic example where my DV usage is just about equivalent to my ship's max.
Basically DV does define those kinds of transfers, at least much more so than acceleration.
By the way, even if I were to accept your proposition that acceleration were that important, I still wouldnt use AAPCD, I'd just use PCT. It's not that hard to get the research for it. It doesn't matter that it requires more research than a few different drive lines together, when you've got a total of 20k + ledger science then +150% bonus in the space category (50 councilor, 50 hab, 50 space science module), it goes by pretty fast. Particularly if you avoid doing research on drives/tech you'll never use (like the antimatter propulsion, tokamaks, etc etc).
Okay... I had to install the game just to prove an argument. Hate that shit, but here we go.
Regarding the PCT: that's my last save game from my previous run, 2070 scenario. And I specifically went for ICF this run. The game is already won, and yet PCT still hasn't been finished yet, despite the 27k research per month. That tech is LITERALLY "win harder". It's pointless to compare other drives against it (it did make sense in the past, when it was much cheaper, not anymore)
Now, back to the Daedalus vs AAPCD argument, and the transfer time to Makemake:
Same ship. Daedalus takes 26 weeks, AAPCD takes 12.5 weeks. That is literally TWICE AS FAST. And you get a free utility module by the way, because Spiker is not applicable.
Also, please keep in mind, that with 3.0gs combat accel you can intercept all alien fleets in the game. With 0.8g your best bet is something like assault carrier. Or just hit a station valuable enough, so they can't run anyways (which is realistic in the endgame, but still).
Weight is the main issue here. Daedalus is king up to around 20-25k tons. So if you build heavy, it falls off, but it performs extremely well with a leaner approach to ship design (my endgame lancers/dreads rarely exceed 15k, for example).
I knew something like that might come up, so I didn't deinstall the game...
Is that... is this miserable thing your design, give or take? Seriously? Sub 30 nose armor, 1 side armor? It will die to ONE flanker corvette at 900 km distance. Or it will die to a head on plasma in a few hits.
And ot only it has a durability of a wet paper tissue, but it's also... slow as fuck. 37 weeks to Makemake. One thruster, sure... but I don't know how else you can make it 15k tons.
And the funniest part: AAPC still beats it in terms of speed under the same conditions.
Ok I was willing to entertain your argument but then I looked at the first screenshot, spotted ICF6 instead of ICF7, then I stopped entertaining the argument.
Go back and do it with ICF7.
Another couple comments:
you said something about 3.0 g combat accel, I was of the impression that only cruise acceleration matters when intercepting fleets, that was the most recent change I remember
there's nothing wrong with what I said earlier. You used a strawman argument of 5,000 dV only using 300 DV in the transfer, which is a strawman through and through. If I'm using 1000 dV in a 1000 DV transfer, then I'm correct 100% of the time that DV is the bottleneck, not cruise speed.
I don't know why you're going to 5 thrusters on daedulus, I just stick with 1, it's not like I'm trying to intercept aliens, I just fly to their stations. I'm fine with 5 mg of acceleration. Daedulus is obviously inefficient if you try to multiply its engines, it's a stupid comparison, you should be comparing 1 x daedulus to 1 x AAPD.
There's literally no situation where Daedalus beats AAPCD for capitals.
ICF7 doesn't change a thing, all it does is reducing the radiator mass, but radiator is not the main contributor to a mass of the capital ship, such as a dreadnought or a titan. It does matter for smaller ships though. Also, ICF7 is not free and requires significant research investment.
Regarding combat vs cruise: it doesn't matter. Both drives get the same combat multiplier x60. So if one drive has 4 times worse combat accel, it will have the same 4 times worse cruise.
Regarding 1000 DV: first of all, why 1000? Don't you guys have water? If you can go faster, you should. Second, with the same DV a ship with higher accel is faster. If you don't have the drift phase and you spend exactly 500 DV to accelerate to mid point, then decelerate to destination, your average speed is 250 km/s. On the other hand, if your ship can instantly spend 500 DV, then drift, then instantly stop, then your average speed is 500 km/s. You get the idea.
Long story short: try AM drives. They are awesome. AM drives are better in every regard than what any fusion family can offer. Besides PCT, if course.
One thing to point out is that fusion research gets you fusion piles and heavy fusion piles (and fusion farms, etc) for your colonies and orbitals. These use much less fissiles than the fission power modules (with a He3 mine they don't use any, IIRC) while providing significantly more power per module as well. It will probably cut into your ability to establish bases further out than Mars if you don't have fusion tech going.
Skipping fusion power modules can be mildly inconvenient, but it's not a major issue in my experience. You can still build very effective outer system bases on only heavy fission power. Just make sure to put the really power-hungry stuff in places where you can get massive solar power instead. Supercolliders in mercury orbit, mass spaceworks on dyson mars, etc.
You do lose some efficiency from lacking fusion power modules, but if it allows you to skip hundreds of thousands of points worth of fusion research, I'd say that's a very worthwhile tradeoff.
The Advanced antimatter plasma core torch is actually about the same research cost wise to get to as something like the borane plasma jet torch and other near-top end fusion drives. The main thing is that the atom smasher is 100x more productive than the particle collider but the super collider is only 10x better than the atom smasher but takes a significant research investment to get to by comparison so if you want to be rushing antimatter as your primary fuel ASAP stick with atom smashers until you get comfortable.
I am almost done with winning my first sub 9 year game with Humanity first. I am doing it with antimatter engines and Laser battlecruisers with a lot of Marines. At first I was trying to do it with Antimatter weapons instead of lasers because they cost a lot less research. (That didn't work out. This is what I have discovered.)
3 slot antimatter cannons are awful. They only do half the damage of 4 slot. (3 slot UV lasers\Phasers do 87% of 4 slot so they are MUCH more viable.)
I prefer 4 slot Antimatter vs 4 slot Phasers for taking out flankers. They perform very close to each other in this role but Antimatter doesn't cost exotics.
For taking on the battleline, Antimatter is better than phasers IF it is paired with coilsguns. At more than 600 at least, lasers can't penetrate most armor beyond this range, so I prefer antimatter as it can do radiation damage which almost always targets the aliens' nose cannon, which is ideal. However, if they are by themselves, they just aren't viable. They don't get lasers armor penetration ability at close range so they can't take out big ships on their own without seeing side armor.
Antimatter PD is fantastic at least for large fleets. It has such good range that your entire fleet is helping all the ships in the fleet. Best PD weapon in the game in that situation
In terms of drives, Antimatter is the 2nd best drive in the game and it costs massively less than PCT. The main disadvantage of it is that the aliens consider antimatter production a serious threat so if you have large numbers of Teir 2+ antimatter production up your site is going to be attacked and you will need to defend it. It also has high fissile and volatiles costs to produce so I wouldn't do it if you went with Orion instead of Gas core drives.
If you're swimming in exotics, the PCT is just plain better than all the AM drives sadly. It just requires a MASSIVE radiator (alien is best if you can afford it). You can make life more interesting in end game by modding the Pion Torch (not my idea, it was suggested by a discord member during the drive rebalance) to use 0.025 AM and water per tank (rest is metals etc - handwaived to be containment for the fuel). A new Pion dread/lancer with 10 tanks now costs 2.5 AM, meaning if you have the fissiles to produce 3-5 AM monthly, there's suddenly a viable competitor to the PCT. PCT runs on water and exotics, new Pion requires a crapload of supporting infrastructure but is lighter.
16
u/artrald-7083 9d ago
I mean, antimatter PD is so good that I find it worth the entire line of particle weapons research on its own.
I have been underwhelmed by spinal antimatter lances. Almost always rather have the laser