hide results

    Armaments FAQ by Alastair412

    Version: 0.82 | Updated: 04/15/03 | Search Guide | Bookmark Guide

                                  MASTER OF ORION 3
                                  BOOK OF ARMAMENTS
    V0.82  04/15/03 Revamped DF weapon tables and analysis
    Copyright 2003 Mario Laubacher (Alastair)
    Send comments, feedback, additions or corrections to alastair412@yahoo.com,
    mentioning the FAQ's name in the subject header.
    Flames or comments on the quality of MOO3 will go straight to /dev/null.
    "ARTHUR: Consult the Book of Armaments! 
    BROTHER MAYNARD: Armaments, Chapter Two, verses Nine to Twenty-one. 
    SECOND BROTHER: And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying,
    'O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine 
    enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and the people did
    feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and 
    breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu-- 
    MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother." -- Monty Python's Holy Grail
    1   Introduction and Legal Notice
    2   Revision History
    3   Design Guidelines
          3.A  When to redesign
          3.B  Specialized vs. Combined Arms
          3.C  Point Defense
          3.D  Comparing Weapon Types
          3.E  Missiles and Racks
          3.F  Defense
          3.G  Electronics
          3.H  Speed
          3.I  Ship types and TFs
          3.J  Target Saturation
    4    Hull Table
    5    Defense Tables
    6    Direct Fire Tables
    7    Fighter Tables
    8    Missile Tables 
    9    Electronics
    10   Misc techs
    11   Credits and Thanks
    12   Hosting Information
    ==================  1 Introduction and Legal Notice  =======================
    This FAQ covers Master Of Orion 3's ship design and weaponry.
    This FAQ is copyrighted by Alastair (Mario Laubacher), and may not be published
    without my consent. If you wish to maintain a copy of this document on your
    site, please send me an e-mail at alastair412@yahoo.com.
    This may be not be reproduced under any circumstances except for personal,
    private use. Use of this guide on any other web site or as a part of any public
    display without written permission is strictly prohibited, and a violation of
    Master of Orion 3 (MOO3) is copyrighted and trademarked by Quicksilver and
    Acronyms used:
    The following will appear in the FAQ quite often:
    TF        Taskforce
    IF        Indirect Fire weapons (Missiles)
    DF        Direct Fire weapons
    LR / LRS  Long Range Ships
    SR / SRS  Short Range Ships
    Hulls acronyms
    LC        Light Cruiser
    CR        Cruiser
    BC        Battle Cruiser
    BS        Battleship
    DN        Dreadnought
    SDN       Super Dreadnought
    ====================  2  Version History  ==================================
    03/21/03 v0.5   Working version (not published).
    03/24/03 v0.6   Initial Release.
    03/25/03 v0.7   DF weapon analysis done, added Ch. 7and 9, acronyms and some
                    other fixes here and there.
    03/26/03 v0.72  Corrections and fixes on armor, PD and fighters
    04/14/03 v0.8   Added missiles, included data patch corrections, drives,
                    new section delving into target saturation (3.J) and more.
    04/15/03 v0.82  Revamped DF weapon tables and analysis, fixed some data,
                    included additional insight on missile payload and a reader
                    submission on cloaking / detection.
    ====================  3  Design Guidelines  ===============================
    --------------( 3.A When to redesign )----------------------------------------
    With a wealth of techs and weaponry available, the timing for redesign is
    quite important. Several options are available, but in general terms, I
    recommend redesigning in the following situations:
    - New warp drive: Speed is crucial. The faster your ships travel down those
    jump lanes, the better your ability to keep the initiative or to react to AI
    actions. Further, newer drives take up less space per speed units (this also
    applies to system drives, BTW).
    - New hull type: what's the use of getting that shiny Leviathan hull if you
    don't use it? Superior hull space packs more firepower - use it to your
    advantage. I don't necessarily redesign other hulls at that point, though.
    - New weaponry: I don't prioritize that part myself. There are a few weapon
    techs which almost beg for a full redesign, though, mainly Lightning fields.
    Normally, I obsolete old types within 3 turns of a full redesign. Your mileage
    may vary, though.
    Finally, I scrap obsolete reserves as soon as a sizeable reserve of a superior
    design is available, which means between 10 and 20 turns of introducing the
    new designs.
    In relationship with Antaran expeditions, note that launching one will pull
    the required amount of ships from your reserves, apparently at random
    (excluding transports, colony and outpost). To have better control on what
    gets sent out, scrap what you don't need or put it into active taskforces.
    On the matter of transports, you'll have noticed that MOO3 has a tendency to
    overdo transport building. This is a recognized bug adressed in the upcomming
    patch. In the meantime, make sure you obsolete any transports as soon as you
    have suitable reserves.
    --------------( 3.B Specialized vs. Combined Arms )---------------------------
    When building cruiser and bigger hulls, you tend to get enough space to
    seriously consider whether you want a "pure" design per ship type or rather
    "mixed" weaponry.
    Obviously, a "pure" design will pack more damage for the weapon type of
    your choice. However, this comes at the cost of versability both in offense
    and defense. We'll comment briefly on the pros and cons of each weapon group
    a bit later on, but my personal preference goes to "mixed" designs. Whatever
    your choice, though, keep in mind that combined arms brings a huge advantage
    in being able to confront any situations. If you go for "pure" ship designs,
    try at least to mix your ship types when assembling a new TF, even in the main
    --------------( 3.C Point Defense )-------------------------------------------
    Currently, before the code patch gets released, PD is broken. You can't count
    on PD weaponry to protect your fleet against incoming missiles, which can lead
    to severe losses.
    However, there is a workaround: it appears that as long as your ships have any
    missiles left, the PD weapons will do their job. Hence make sure to equip all
    your ships with one single rack of Nuclear warheads (PD mount does fine). Some
    people recommend always putting 20 of them. This is not necessary in all
    situations, though, as you can waste valuable space doing so. Your PD weapons
    will fire as long as the rack isn't empty - so if you're quite ahead in the
    tech race, 8-12 missiles will do nicely. This is related to the duration of
    your battles: if most fights end within 3 minutes, chances are you won't be
    able to deplete even 8 missiles.
    Zhaneel also mentions that the PD bug can be completely offset by issuing
    a patrol command (without the missile racks). I haven't verified this myself,
    also note that for my taste, it limits my actions too much.
    In terms of equipment, my preference goes to a combination of PD-mounted
    phaser beams coupled with a second series of light-mount phaser beams. While
    damage is equal, the light mount exchanges range for rate of fire. In practice
    though, I find it an advantage to be able to fire a few shots at incoming
    missiles from farther away, diminishing the amount of work the PDs have to
    perform to shoot down what's left.
    After analyzing the weapon tables, I would recommed replacing phasers with
    disruptor cannons once you have all improvements researched for it. See
    the analysis in the DF weapon tables for a rundown.
    For fighter protection, the most efficient PD weapon by far are lightning
    fields. If they aren't on your tech tree, your scientific spies and your
    diplomats should work overtime to get it - it's just too invaluable to miss.
    Quicksilver posted a first (unnumbered) data patch. One of the huge changes in
    there affects missiles and the PD bug. While missile damage has been cut in
    half, the rate of fire has been vastly increased. Which means that you'll 
    shoot your missile complement out pretty quick - and so does your opponent.
    In terms of PD workaround, be aware that your PD racks will empty much faster
    now than before, so if you stick to PD racks, favor 20 missiles over 8-12 :)
    --------------( 3.D Comparing Weapon Types )----------------------------------
    As you will have noticed, MOO3 offers three weapon types: direct fire,
    fighters and missiles. Here's a rapid rundown of the pros and cons of each
    Direct fire
    - unlimited firepower
    - vast choice of mounts
    - Good damage
    - Lots of modifications
    - Maximal range / damage requires a lot of space
    - The truly damaging mounts have a very low rate of fire
    - Can't be used to bombard planets
    - Unlimited supply
    - Virtually unlimited range
    - Deep scouting
    - Expendable targets for enemy missiles and fighters
    - Need to lose a complete squadron before a new one is generated
    - Low speed
    - "Fish school" flight AI
    - Best damage / weight ratio (only pre-data patch!)
    - Speed
    - Grouped targetting wastes a whole volley in overkill
    - Limited supply
    This quick comparison explains my preference for mixed designs. At the very
    least, both my carriers and IF have at least one spinal-type beam weapon so
    they aren't useless once their last volley has been fired or their fighter
    complement is out fighting planetside while a SR TF approaches your ships.
    To maximize the weaponry effect for fighters and missiles, when fighting near
    armed planets, I always select each TF and target the planet every 5 seconds
    to make sure all my indirect weaponry is in flight and ready to react to
    enemy TFs popping up midway. Usually, the first or second volley wipes out
    planetary bases, leaving the rest available to re-acquire whatever target lies
    The benefits of using lots of fighters in any fleet can't be stressed enough. 
    They provide deep recon by forcing enemy ships to uncloack when firing, 
    and plenty of distraction for fighters and especially missiles.
    When a 1000-damage warhead blows up a 30-HP fighter, that's 970 damage gone to
    waste. Of course, this works both ways. Note that normally, though, with
    decent cloaking and ECM on your TFs, the AI seems incapable of targetting your
    main fleets, giving the human player a distinct advantage. To maximize this,
    use the launch method described above as soon as you have a target.
    The data patch has changed missiles: half damage, but a much quicker rate of
    fire. In practice, this means you'll apply much more damage in a shorter 
    timeframe. This also means your IF ships will end up as sitting ducks within
    one and two minutes of combat, and if you still got serious opposition at that
    time, too bad: your fleet's efficiency is severely hampered.
    Now more than ever, I am comforted in my mixed design approach.
    Major difference is that I find I don't build any IF-type ships at all
    anymore by now, just LR, PD, reco and carriers.
    --------------( 3.E Missiles and Racks )--------------------------------------
    When designing your missile complement, keep in mind that there are two weight
    components: individual missile weight and rack weight. Adding several racks
    ensures larger volleys being shot, adding more missiles per rack ensure that
    more volleys can be shot. On large hulls, I tend to limit myself to 5 racks,
    counting 5+ missiles per rack. But this is also due to my preference for mixed
    designs, as the rest of the space gets occupied by a bunch of fighters and a
    couple of Spinal+ direct fire weapons.
    Note that the heavy chassis sports the best damage / space ratio. Avoid using
    --------------( 3.F Defense )-------------------------------------------------
    Armor doesn't take up space, but tends to cost a lot. Shields are relatively
    cheap compared to armor, but take up quite a bit of space, have less stopping
    power, and tend to get depleted pretty quick.
    Hence I usually boost industry DEAs on 5-10 size-12 planets and skip shields
    When in need for shielding, though (the enemy is close in techs or ahead of
    me in techs), I go for damper fields as soon as they are available. Although
    they are weaker in sheer power than Class VII+ shields, they recharge to full
    strength every 5 seconds, never running out, while traditional shields run
    out after 1-2 blasts.
    --------------( 3.G Electronics )---------------------------------------------
    Due to the lack of explanations on the manual, some confusion exists about the
    respective effect of ECM and ECCM.
    To summarize what those _should_ do:
    - ECM jam enemy battle computers, rendering the detection of your TFs more
    - ECCM unscrambles your own battle computers.
    ECM and ECCM of the same level cancel each other out. However, contrary to
    some people's assumption, this doesn't mean that having both in your TFs makes
    them usueless. By design, they are matched against enemy devices, not your
    But where to place them?
    Putting both devices on the same ship is a pure waste of space. ECM is a 
    defensive device, it is probably best placed on your PD ships. ECCM, on the
    other hand, is a detection device, and it's best located on your recon ships.
    Note that ECM protects your whole TF to a point, while ECCM, like the scan
    devices, work a tad differently.
    In MOO3, whenever one single ship notices an enemy ship or weapon, your whole
    fleet sees them at once.
    In practice, the computer adds up all the values of each individual ECM in
    your fleet and matches them against the total of the opposing ECCM. If your
    ECM values (see the tech tables below) totals are higher, your fleet will be
    protected. If it's lower, it won't - and vice versa.
    Cloaking: I haven't had much time to delve into specifics so far, but from a
    cursory look, it seems to have two effects: a visual cloaking value, and an
    ECM value. There's a big difference, though: The weakest cloak's ECM value is
    as good as ECM V... for a much smaller space and a ludicrously low cost.
    Which would mean that using any ECM device over cloaking is just a waste of
    space and money as long as you're ahead in the tech race.
    *sigh*. Yet another area where a better manual would have helped... I miss 
    SMAC / SMAX's detailed encyclopedia...
    Note that contrary to ECM, ECCM and detection devices, cloaks can't be
    stacked. Which means it's usually a good idea to have your PD ships adding
    to your TF's total jamming value.
    --------------( 3.H Speed )---------------------------------------------------
    As my tactics mainly involve sniping from afar or using missiles with 
    fighters, planet-side fights don't recquire a lot of speed.
    That doesn't mean you should spare the space and drop your system drive speed
    to 1 - when flying interception missions or fighting a guardian, your IF and
    carriers are exposed, as they won't launch their weaponry before they spot a
    I tend to have my system drives at 60%-75% of max speed at any times. For LRs,
    which need a bit more mobility, I usually select 80% of max speed.
    Note that your TFs will (obviously) always move at the speed of your slowest
    ship within that TF, so keep that in mind when designing and assembling your
    --------------( 3.I Ship types and TFs )--------------------------------------
    Apart from the obvious like colony and outpost ships, what to build?
    As highlighted in the weapon comparison, carriers and IF ships pretty much own
    the battlefield, especially when building mixed designs or at least mixed TFs.
    In complement to carriers and IF ships, I build a set of mixed LRS as well, to
    add some punch to my TFs when combat becomes more close and personal.
    I don't like SR ships nor SR TFs. They simply have to get too close to be
    effective - which means lots of losses. Also, to be effective, you would
    probably want to go for full speed and shields - at the expense of firepower.
    I tend to have several hull sizes per ship type, so that all my planets can
    contribute to the building effort.
    For TFs, I build nothing but armadas for offense fleets. A carrier armada
    sports the following combination:
    - 1-2 cap-ship carriers (by turn 200+, titans or bigger)
    - 4-5 smaller carriers (by turn 200+, BC to SDN)
    - 1 cap IF
    - 4 smaller IFs
    - 1 big LRS (DN or better)
    Escort ring:
    - 2 PD ships (currently one LC and one BC)
    - 2 BC+-sized LRS
    Picket ring:
    - 2 medium-sized reco
    IF armadas are currently very similar, I usually only invert the carrier and
    IF ship numbers. In practice, however, as I use mixed ship designs as well, I
    tend to limit myself to building IF TFs, unless I run out of IF cap ships.
    Note that in combat, you are limited to 10 TFs per assault. The CPU selects
    your best TFs present in the system to do the job.
    This _seems_ to exclude system ships and orbitals, but I need to confirm this
    sometime soon.
    One use I have for SR TFs is to build one brand of mid-sized SR ships, 
    and include sensor-heavy recon ships in the TFs. I group them in smaller
    TFs and use them as detectors / decoys in heavily defended and cloacked areas,
    typically guardians and Orion. Those throwaway TFs don't survive for long, but
    usually allow to detect the opponent and attract its fire without risking the
    lives of my main (and expensive) armadas.
    --------------( 3.J Target Saturation )---------------------------------------
    To summarize some things which are scattered throughout this FAQ, let me
    formally introduce the notion of target saturation.
    In MOO3 terms, saturation means offering your opponent multiple distractions
    aside from your main fleet.
    The more advanced targets lie between your TFs and the opponent, the less the
    risk that a heavy missile volley reaches your ships. Saturation is a huge
    boost to defense, and costly to overcome in offense.
    Saturation is best achieved by massive fighter groups (hence again one
    advantage to using mixed designs). When you reach Cruiser hull size, try to
    have all your main ships carrying at least 5 interceptors - that's 60
    additional targets to absorb one missile volley flying ahead of your ships.
    Saturation also works well for missile volleys themselves: the more missiles
    per volley, the more you'll get through the opponent's PD walls.
    To counter saturation is much more difficult. In solo, that's no issue: the AI
    doesn't use it. But in multiplayer, this could become tricky very quick. The
    keys to overcome fighter saturation would be lightning field and light-mounted
    PD weaponry.
    I would venture that on large-scale battles involving two high-tech human
    players, a winning fleet setup would involve the following:
    - Cruiser+ PD ships, sporting 10+ Lighting Field Generators, Damper Fields,
    a handful of long-range direct fire beams and scores of light-mounted PDs
    - Reco ships, perhaps the same size, packed with electronics, LFG and Dampers
    - Cap ships Titan+, at least 10 ion dual-pod fighters, LFG, good PD beams and
    some serious long-ranged beam bruising capabilities. Missile set-up is tricky
    here: It's perhaps better to have less racks with more missiles in order to
    outlast enemy saturation. Just a hunch, though.
    Now for the fleet buildup, assuming you're able to sport 10 armadas, Id' try
    out 7 Carrier armadas patrolling in the farthest edge of the map, and 3 PD
    armadas patrolling about 3 squares ahead of them. Make sure your 7 carriers
    send out 4-5 missile volleys and their fighter complement at once. When an
    enemy TF becomes visible, don't group-target more than two armadas at the
    same time - wait about 3-5 seconds before targetting with 2 more TFs. When
    the enemy missile stream starts to trickle down, carefully close in for the
    kill, and let your beams and fighters do the job from afar.
    Alternatively, I could suggest building one reco TF with Titan+ sized scouts:
    ultra-heavy armor, full damper fields, full cloak, scanners and jammers, and
    a bunch of short-ranged beams. Wait 'till the initial missile exchange 
    trickles down, then send this one forward a bit outside of the direct path 
    between your main TFs and where the opponent seemed to launch his stuff from.
    Use this special TFs for both reconnaissance and decoy purposes.
    Those are just ideas, BTW, none of them field-tested, as I don't multiplay.
    As with all such games, it's just theorycraft - if you get wasted by a better
    opponent, don't just curse me: learn from your opponent, and if you would,
    send me an email telling me where the above theories fall severly short.
    Remember this old military maxim: no plan survives enemy contact.
    This section owes to an e-mail sent to me by Mark Reyhner, who noted that for
    fighters, Death Ray offered a better raw dmg / spc and Firedefay ratio than
    the rest. After thinking about it, though, I'll favour Dual-podded Ion
    fighters because of saturation, until armor piercing gets back in.
    ====================  4  Hull Table  =======================================
    --------------( Hull Sizes )--------------------------------------------------
    The data patch halves all hull base costs. Tables have been updated.
    ///Updated v0.82
    Zhaneel reminded me that in the patch documentation, this halving supposedly
    applies only to orbitals and system ships. This led me to re-browse the tech
    This results in the following distinctions between the ship classes (numbers
    are multipliers over base values):
    Class          Cost   Capacity
    Orbitals       0.66   1.5
    System Ships   0.75   1.33
    Starships      1      1
    In short, you fit more stuff for less money on orbitals and system ships, PLUS
    you spare the space for warp drives. This gives defenders a big theoretical
    advantage, offset by the fact that, when defending a planet, you can't launch
    your mobile weaponry before an enemy taskforce uncloaks.
    Possible strategy in multiplayer: don't build planetary defense bases at all -
    you'll deprive an opponent of an initial target, which negates his saturation
    advantage and forces him to close in and expose himself.
    When you have both orbitals and system ships, move your system TFs away 
    sideways from the planet towards the farther edge of the map (where your
    opponents TF's are hiding), so that he only spots your orbitals, then
    move in sideways, lauch your mobile weaponry and aim for the kill.
    In such a strategy, as orbitals are sitting ducks anyway, give them scores
    of the longest-range DFs on ultra spinal mounts, and use the extra space to
    add at least standard damper fields. That should be enough to field a serious
    Finally, regarding orbitals, you can have 4 orbitals around your planet, and
    three more per moon. Ethereans with their preference for huge gas giants which
    are surrounded by lots of moons have a distinct racial advantage for defense
    over all other races here.
    Type              Cost   Capacity
    Lancer              50      50
    Cutter              71      70
    Corvette           102     100
    Frigate            149     140
    Destroyer          219     200
    Light Cruiser      325     285
    Cruiser            487     405
    Battle Cruiser     729     575
    Battleship        1132     815
    Dreadnought       1756    1155
    Superdreadnought  2736    1635
    Titan             4323    2310
    Behemoth          6853    3265
    Leviathan        11122    4615
    The advantage of bigger sizes are of course their sheer payload. On the other
    hand, though, their cost can become quite a burden on your PP. Keep track of
    your production capacities: A behemoth-sized ship requires you have at least
    a couple of worlds capable of churning out 7000+ PPs per turn in order to get
    built at a reasonable pace.
    ====================  5 Defense Tables  ====================================
    --------------( Armor Types )-------------------------------------------------
    Name         Cost      ArmorVal     Deflect
    Zortrium      20         100           2
    Duranium      60         200           6
    Titanium     140         400          10
    Neutronium   300         800          14
    Adamantium   620        1600          18
    --------------( Armor Plating )-----------------------------------------------
    Type                     CostMult  ArmorMult   DeflectMult
    No Armor                  0          0             0
    Very Light Armor (VLA)    0.75       0.50          0.5
    Light Armor (LA)          1.00       1.00          0.66
    Medium Armor (MA)         3.00       2.00          1
    Heavy Armor (HA)          7.00       4.00          1.5
    Very Heavy Armor (VHA)   12.00       8.00          1.75
    Ultra Heavy Armor (UHA)  18.00      16.00          2
    When selecting building VHA or UHA ships, note that going for lower type + UHA
    will be much cheaper (hence faster to build), at the expense of about 25%-40% in
    deflection value. But it might be worth considering.
    Example: Duranium UHA: cost 1080, Armor 3200, Defl 12
             Titanium VHA: cost 1680, Armor 3200, Defl 17.5
    --------------( Shields )-----------------------------------------------------
    Shield Generators come in three variants: small, standard, and large.
    Each size provides 1.5x regen rates and shield str over the smaller size,
    but cost and space doubles every time. If you need the space, absolutely
    prefer better armor and smaller generator.
    There are 10 shield types plus Damper fields available. For an increase
    in cost, each size gives you better defletion values and recharge rates, at
    the same space cost - therefore only cost is a consideration when deciding on
    the type you need.
    Traditional shield purchasing gets completely outclassed if you manage to 
    research Damper fields. Damper fields cost quite a bit more than normal 
    shields, and take thrice the space, but they regenerate their whole strength
    every 5 seconds. Although technically, the shield resistance for class VII+ is 
    better, it gets chipped away with every shot, usually way faster than its 
    recharge rate. Meanwhile, your damper fields keep recharging until the end of
    the battle.
    ====================  6  Direct Fire Tables  ===============================
    --------------( Mounts )------------------------------------------------------
    Spc       = Space multiplier
    Cost      = Cost multiplier
    Dmg       = Dmg multiplier (affects both NearDmg and FarDmg)
    DistMult  = Distance multiplier (affects DmgDis, AccDis and MaxRange)
    FireDlay  = Fire Delay mulitplier
    Name                  Spc     Cost Dmg    Dist    Fire
                                              Mult    Dlay
    Point Defense(1)       0.8    1.0  0.33   0.75    0.75   
    Light Mount            0.8    0.75 0.8    0.8     0.8    
    Standard Mount         1.0    1.0  1.0    1.0     1.0
    Heavy Mount            1.75   2.0  1.5    1.3     1.2    
    Very Heavy Mount       2.75   3.0  2.0    1.7     1.4    
    Ultra Heavy Mount      4.0    4.0  2.5    2.1     1.6    
    Spinal Mount           1.5    3.5  2.0    1.5     2.2    
    Improved Spinal Mount  2.0    5.0  3.0    2.0     3.5     
    Ultra Spinal Mount     3.0    7.0  5.0    2.5     5     
    (1) PD has MultFire value of 2. Which means a PD should shoot twice as much
    as any other mount. In practice, it doesn't work. Yet another bug.
    Note that Ultra Heavy Mounts are better than Spinals and Improved Spinals, 
    at the expense of space and cost. The lower Fire Delay is also worth 
    In practice, you can fit twice as much Improved Spinals than Ultra Heavies,
    but they will fire less than half often. If cost is a factor (because your
    production capabilities are an issue), though, prefer Ultra Heavy Mounts.
    --------------( Weapons )-----------------------------------------------------
    ///Update v0.82
    On reader request, the tables have been merged, and more comparative data
    has been included. Comparisons by type of weapons have been moved to the
    bottom. Also, there is now an Efficiency Chart below the weaons tables.
    FireDlay   = Delay between two shots
    MultFire   = # of shots fired per salvo
    NearDmg    = The weapon's max damage, applied between point-blank and DmgDisSt
    FarDmg     = The weapon's min damage, applied between point-blank and MaxRng
    DmgDisSt   = The distance between point-blank and the point where damage
                 starts to decrease.
    MaxAcc     = The maximum accuracy at AccDisSt? orMaxRng? No way to know.
    AccDisSt   = The distance between point-blank and the point where accuracy
                 starts to decrease. The decay is not known.
    MaxRng     = The max range at which the weapon will manage to hit a target /
                 deal any damage
    Cost       = The cost in AU.
    Spc        = The space used.
    ShldPen    = Shield Penetration. Not certain how the value is used. 
    ArmrPierc  = Armour Piercing. Not used in the game atm.  (1)
    Type       = The weapon type.
       M1 / M2 = Miniaturization: Space * .8 per level (both = space *.64)
       I       = Improved: NearDmg * 1.5, FarDmg * 1.1
       AP      = Armor Piercing: ArmorPierc *.75, Space * 1.5  (1)
       AF      = AutoFire: MultFire * 3, Space *2  
       C       = Continuous: Accuracy *1.5, Space * 1.25
       E       = Envelopping: ShieldPen *.5, Space *1.66    
    (1)  It looks like all tests indicate that ArmorPiercing has been entirely 
    removed from the game. I don't really take those into account when 
    evaluating weapons atm, and a good thing it is, since if this does get
    patched back in, this could severely affect weapon effectiveness.
    This means that at this moment, using AP improvement is a good way to
    waste space for no effect.
    Visage on the official boards verified that multiple firing always goes to one
    single target per "shooting round". Which means that if the first true shot
    kills your target, the rest gets wasted.
    ///New v0.82
    Several tests performed by Visage tend to indicate that the dropoff in
    damage due to distance isn't linear - in fact, most of the dropoff occurs
    near MaxRange.
    Name                 Fire Mult  Near  Far   Dmg     Max   Acc      Max
                         Dlay Fire  Dmg   Dmg   DisSt   Acc   DisSt    Rng
    Laser                2.5    1     7     1    4500   0.7    4500    7167 
    Mass Driver          2.5    1    14     3    5732   0.5    4500    5733 
    Fusion Beam          2.5    1    31     2    4500   0.8    4500    6167 
    Quark Cannon         2.5    1    15     3    4500   0.7    4500    8017  
    Hard Beam            2.5    1    15     7    4500   0.7    4500   11333 
    Rail Gun             2.5    1    30     7    9065   0.5    4500    9067  
    Neutron Blaster      2.5    1    33     3    4500   0.7    4500   11628 
    Hellfire Cannon      2.5    1    67    10    4500   0.8    4500    8944  
    Graviton Beam        2.5    1    49     3    4500   0.7    4500   13433 
    Ion Pulse Cannon     2.5    1    33     4    4500   0.7    4500   15500 
    Particle Beam        2      1    49    10    4500   0.9    4500   13433 
    Phasors              2.5    1    48     5    4500   0.7    4500   17583 
    Gauss Cannon         2.5    1    97     9   14065   0.5    4500   14067 
    Lightning Field Gen  2.5    5    36    36    4500   0.9    4500    6364  
    Plasma Cannon        2.5    1   213     6    4500   0.8    4500   13111 
    Dark Energy Beam     2.5    1   107    20    4500   0.7    4500   17044 
    Disruptor Cannon     2.5    1   209    20   17399   0.5    4500   17400 
    Death Ray            2      1   157    50    4500   0.9    4500   18850 
    Disintegrater Beam   2.5    1   105    23    4500   0.7    4500   21750 
    Megabolt Cannon      2.5    1   314    23    4500   0.8    4500   14500 
    Tachyon Beam         2.5    1   231    27    4500   0.7    4500   20656 
    Mauler               4      1   679     1    4500   1     15887   15889 
    Dark Matter Proj     2.5    1   453    30   20732   0.5    4500   20733 
    Stellar Converter    8      1  1000   200    4500   1     27999   28000 
    Name                Cost  Spc Shld Armr  Type     Improvements
                                  Pen  Pier
    Laser                 5   10   1    1    Beam     M1, M2, I, AP, AF, C 
    Mass Driver           9   22   1    1    Mass     M1, M2, I, AP, AF  
    Fusion Beam          21   15   1    1    Plasma   M1, M2, I, C, E    
    Quark Cannon         10   12   0.9  1    Particle M1, M2, I,      
    Hard Beam            10    7   1    1    Beam     M1, M2, I,         
    Rail Gun             20   13   1    1    Mass     M1, M2, I,         
    Neutron Blaster      22   15   0.9  1    Particle M1, M2, I, C       
    Hellfire Cannon      45   19   1    1    Plasma   M1, M2, I,          
    Graviton Beam        33   18   0.9  1    Particle M1, M2, I, C        
    Ion Pulse Cannon     22   10   1    0.8  Beam     M1, M2, I, AF      
    Particle Beam        33   18   0.1  0.9  Particle                      
    Phasers              32   14   1    1    Beam     M1, M2, I, C, AF, AP
    Gauss Cannon         64   27   1    1    Mass     M1, M2, I, AP, AF   
    Lightning Field Gen  24   10   0.7  0.7  Plasma   M1, M2, I,         
    Plasma Cannon       142   44   1    1    Plasma   M1, M2, I, C       
    Dark Energy Beam     71   33   0.9  1    Particle M1, M2, I,          
    Disruptor Cannon    139   54   1    1    Mass     M1, M2, I, AF      
    Death Ray           105   45   0.8  0.7  Particle                    
    Disintegrator Beam   70   25   1    1    Beam     M1, M2, I,          
    Megabolt Cannon     209   59   1    1    Plasma   M1, M2, I,         
    Tachyon Beam        154   61   0.9  1    Particle M1, M2, I,         
    Mauler              453  113   0.5  1    Plasma   M1, M2             
    Dark Matter Proj    302   95   1    1    Mass     M1, M2, I,         
    Stellar Converter   666  495   1    1    Beam                        
    Analysis per weapon type:
    Beams wield the longest range overall. However, this comes at a cost:
    Both damage and accuracy are severly lowered at the longer ranges.
    They also sport a good Damage / space ratio. They are very well-suited for PD
    to standard mounts on short distances. If you plan to snipe from afar, though,
    avoid beams.
    Adding to their PD suitability is the fact that Ion Pulse and Phasers sport
    the AutoFire improvement.
    Note that the stellar converter, with a Fire Delay of 8 and a huge space cost
    is simply not worth the trouble for a combat weapon. It's only use: converting
    planets to ashes, period.
    Mass Drivers:
    Mass drivers have one huge thing going for them: damage remains constant over
    distance. Their accuracy, however, is only 50%. This makes them a risky bet
    to use as PD weapons, IMO.
    ///New v0.82
    Also, due to the fact that most damage dropoff happens near MaxRange, their
    advantage isn't really that great anyway.
    In the early turns, never use mass drivers over lasers - they're just worse
    all over the band.
    For PDs, a decent late-game alternative to Phasers would be the Disruptor 
    cannon, though. It's range / damage ratio is almost 4 times better than 
    phasors for a slight cost increase, and it holds the AF improvement as well.
    Also consider that you need 44 Phasors to match the damage of 10 disruptors -
    making them longer to design. With the extra range, the disruptor has plenty
    of time to shoot a second time if the first shot misses. A good investment for
    cap ships.
    Particle weapons are quite similar to beams in general. However, their 
    Dmg / space ratio is none too impressive, the loss of damage on max distance
    is bad.
    Initially, the Death Ray would seem like a decent pick due to its short Fire
    Delay. However, the absence of any improvements leaves is sorely outclassed.
    Altogether, particles are just not worth the trouble. If you could steer your
    research, I would never bother in the first place...
    Plasma weapons offer the shortest max range, but pack an excellent Damage /
    space ratio. They are altogether a tad lighter than their counterparts in
    other DF weapon types.
    Of all the plasma weapons available, the Megabolt Cannon is the best choice,
    provided you manage to research or steal all three improvements available.
    With a Fire Delay of 4, and a disappointing damage spread, the Mauler,
    however, is just a waste of space.
    ///New v0.82
    --------------( Efficiency Chart )--------------------------------------------
    The efficiency chart shows how the weapons compare with each other based on
    damage potential vs. space used, and the ranking depending on the way it is
    being measured.
    Dmg/Spc = NearDmg / Spc
    Improv = ((Dmg*MultFire)/FireDlay) / (Spc*MaxAcc)
    Wpn                 Type     Dmg/Spc Rank   Improv  Rank
    Lightning Field Gen Plasma    3.6     8      18.75     1     
    Disruptor Cannon    Mass      3.87    6      10.89     2     
    Gauss Cannon        Mass      3.59    9      10.1      3     
    Dark Matter Proj    Mass      4.77    4       8.94     4     
    Ion Pulse Cannon    Beam      3.3    13       6.63     5     
    Megabolt Cannon     Plasma    5.32    2       6.24     6     
    Disintegrator Beam  Beam      4.2     5       5.63     7     
    Tachyon Beam        Particle  3.79    7       5.07     8     
    Dark Energy Beam    Particle  3.24   14       4.34     9     
    Rail Gun            Mass      2.31   17       4.33    10    
    Hellfire Cannon     Plasma    3.53   10       4.13    11    
    Phasers             Beam      3.43   12       3.67    12    
    Plasma Cannon       Plasma    4.84    3       3.03    13    
    Hard Beam           Beam      2.14   19       2.87    14    
    Mauler              Plasma    6.01    1       2.35    15    
    Graviton Beam       Particle  2.72   15       1.94    16    
    Death Ray           Particle  3.49   11       1.94    17    
    Mass Driver         Mass      0.64   24       1.79    18    
    Quark Cannon        Particle  1.25   22       1.67    19    
    Neutron Blaster     Particle  2.2    18       1.57    20    
    Particle Beam       Particle  2.72   16       1.51    21    
    Fusion Beam         Plasma    2.07   20       1.29    22    
    Laser               Beam      0.7    23       0.75    23    
    Stellar Converter   Beam      2.02   21       0.25    24    
    With this consolidated chart, things become quite obvious, now, don't they?
    In particuliar, properly factoring in improvements demonstrates clearly what
    I introduced a couple of versions ago: Disruptor Cannons own the late-game,
    especially as PD weapons.
    At 3rd place, the Gauss Cannon ought to be your mid / late game pick if you're
    building short-range ships and TFs.
    For Late-Game LR ships / TFs, the Dark Matter Projector is an excellent
    solution despite the accuracy penalty - consider however the Megabolt cannon
    as an add-on to improve MaxRange accuracy.
    There's still the special case of the Ion Pulse Cannon: If ArmorPiercing gets
    patched back in, expect its rating to drop several ranks. Use with caution.
    For early-game PD, use Hard Beams or Hellfire Cannons, then switch to Phasers 
    until you get the Disruptor Cannons and their improvements.
    As hinted earlier, skip Mass Drivers altogether, and do whatever it takes to
    research Quark Cannon before you get involved in early-game fights - you'll
    dominate any enemy ships equipped with the first handfull of techs.
    --------------( Bottomline )--------------------------------------------------
    ///Revised v0.82
    Altogether, consider DF weapons to be first support and defense weaponry.
    Sure, on short ranges, they are well worth the trouble, but short range comes
    with higher casualties OR requires additional shielding (which removes space
    for more firepower).
    If you applied the first data patch, though, with the missile nerfs, you'll
    find equipping all your ships with 1-2 Ultra Heavy or Ultra Spinal mounted
    weapons in exchange of 1 missile less per rack a more than worthy tradeoff.
    For a serious bruising effect, Ultra Spinal Mounts transform the weakest DF 
    into a serious threat - but the FireDly gets huge as well.
    However, consider this: If your first shot is a guaranteed kill, you don't
    need to worry about FireDly for the second one. Plus, on the range bonus
    granted, 5 seconds more just means an already severly diminished TF closes
    in a tiny bit, exposing itself to heavier damage on the second shot.
    ==============  7 Fighter Tables  ==========================================
    --------------( General Data and abbreviations )------------------------------
    FireDlay   = Delay between two shots
    MultFire   = # of shots fired per salvo
    NearDmg    = The weapon's max damage, applied between point-blank and DmgDisSt
    FarDmg     = The weapon's min damage, applied between point-blank and DmgDisEn
    DmgDisSt   = The distance between point-blank and the point where damage
                 starts to decrease.
    DmgDisEn   = The max range at which the weapon will do any damage.
    MaxAccry  = The maximum accuracy at AccDisSt? or AccDisEn? No way to know.
    AccDisSt   = The distance between point-blank and the point where accuracy
                 starts to decrease. The decay is not known.
    AccDisEn   = The max range at which the weapon will manage to hit a target.
    Cost       = The cost in AU.
    Space      = The space used.
    ShldPen    = Shield Penetration. 
    ArmrPierc  = Armour Piercing. Not used in the game.
    Size       = Currently used to determine the fighter's base HP.
       AP      = Armor Piercing: ArmorPierc *.75, Space * 1.5
       AF      = AutoFire: MultFire * 3, Space *2
       DP      = DualPod: MultFire * 2, Space *1.8
       E       = Envelopping: ShieldPen *.5, Space *1.66
    - Fragility and DamagCap have been removed from the tables, as they seem to 
    lack any tangible effect. For base HP, it seems size is considered - has been
    added to the tables.
    - Armor Piercing doesn't work. Don't pick that!
    --------------( Chassis )-----------------------------------------------------
    Note that as for DF mounts, the values indicated are multipliers over the base
    value for each fighter.
    Type                     Space    Cost    NearDmg    FarDmg
    Interceptor Chassis       1.5      1      1          1
    Space Control Chassis     3        2.5    1.4        1.2
    Visage on the official board points out that with double space versus just
    40% damage bonus, Space Control Chassis isn't worth it.
    Indeed, with only interceptors, you get twice as many fighters and hence
    twice as many shots... 
    Note, however, that while Space Control fighters seem to participate in
    planetary bombardment, interceptors don't. If someone finds out otherwise,
    drop me a mail - due to my mixed ship designs, I'm usually not in a position
    to check that out myself.
    --------------( Fighter Types )-----------------------------------------------
    Type                Fire  Mult  Near  Far  Dmg   Dmg    Max    Acc    Acc
                        Dlay  Fire  Dmg   Dmg  DisSt DisEn  Accry  DisSt  DisEn
    Fighter Laser       2.5    1     4     1    3k    4k    0.7    3k     4k
    Fighter Fusion Bm   2.5    1    15     2    3k    4k    0.8    3k     4k
    Fighter Neutron Bl  2.5    1    17     2    3k    4k    0.7    3k     4k
    Fighter Gravit Bm   2.5    1    25     2    3k    4k    0.7    3k     4k
    Fighter Phasors     2.5    1    24     4    3k    4k    0.7    3k     4k
    Fighter Plasma Cn   2.5    1   107     5    3k    4k    0.7    3k     4k
    Fighter Disrup Cn   2.5    1   105    30    3k    4k    0.5    3k     4k
    Fighter Mass Drv    2.5    1     7     5    3k    4k    0.5    3k     4k
    Fighter Gauss Cn    2.5    1    48    14    3k    4k    0.5    3k     4k
    Fighter Ion Pulse   2.5    1    16     4    3k    4k    0.7    3k     4k
    Fighter Particle    2.5    1    25     8    3k    4k    0.9    3k     4k
    Fighter Death Ray   2      1    78    38    3k    4k    0.9    3k     4k
    Type               Cost   Space Shld (Armr    Size   Improvements
                                    Pen   Pier)   
    Fighter Laser        4     6    1      1       6     AF
    Fighter Fusion Bm   15    14    1      1       6     E
    Fighter Neutron Bl  17     7    1      1       6
    Fighter Gravit Bm   25     9    1      1       9
    Fighter Phasors     24     7    1      1       6     DP
    Fighter Plasma Cn  107    41    1      1      15     DP
    Fighter Disrup Cn  105    32    1      1      12
    Fighter Mass Drv     7    13    1      1       6     AP
    Fighter Gauss Cn    48    17    1      1       6
    Fighter Ion Pulse   16     5    0.5    0      18     DP
    Fighter Particle    25     9    0.1    0.8     9
    Fighter Death Ray   78    22    0.7    0.7    18
    --------------( Bottomline )--------------------------------------------------
    From those tables, the best fighter to use is the Phasors Fighter with Dual
    Pods. It has the best Dmg/Space ratio and the best Dmg/cost ratio. It is,
    comparatively, dirt cheap and small.
    Even though sheer firepower is rather small and Fragility is very low, you can
    safely swarm out any opposing force with dozens of fighters, which means an
    equivalent amount of targets to shoot down.
    Important note: AP doesn't have any effect right now. This also means that
    until ArmorPiercing gets patched in, the best fighter could actually be the
    Ion Pulse cannon: they have thrice the HP of phaser fighters, and both lower 
    cost and space.
    =============  8 Missile Tables  ===========================================
    After applying the data patch, note that damage and cost for missiles have
    been halved, while space has been _slightly_ lowered. At the same time,
    the Fire Delay has been reduced a lot.
    --------------( Warhead Chassis )---------------------------------------------
    As for DF mounts, all values are multipliers of the warhead's base values.
    Tags should be self-explanatory by now.
                          FireDlay   Dmg    Cost    Space    Dmg / Spc
    Point Defense Chassis    0.1     0.25    0.75    0.25     1
    Rocket Chassis           0.5     1       1       1        1
    Light Missile Chassis    1       2       2       1.25     1.6
    Heavy Missile Chassis    1.33    4       3       1.75     2.29
    Torpedo Chassis          1.66    5       5       2.5      2
    A quick scan of the Dmg / Spc calculation shows that you'll get the most
    out of Heavy Missile Chassis. In that respect, the Torpedo Chassis is a
    complete waste of space and money. Yes, sheer power matters, but it doesn't
    matter that much. The difference in space can be used either for another rack
    (larger volleys) or perhaps that extram DF weapon or fighter you need.
    --------------( Warheads )----------------------------------------------------
    Those are the base values for each warhead types. Tags are self-explanatory.
    Note that obviously, missiles don't suffer damage drop-off due to distance.
    All missiles have an accuracy of 0.95 (omitted), a FireDelay of 45 (omitted),
    and a target range (I read that as lock-on distance) of 40000 distance unit.
    Current assumption set one square at roughly 4000 units, that  means a missile
    in-flight will lock on any target within 10 squares of their current position.
                            Dmg    Cost    Space    Dmg / Spc
    Nuclear Warhead         56     14         6      9.33
    Anionic Energy Warhead  82     15         6     13.67
    Neutronium Warhead     121     17         7     17.29
    Hercular Warhead       178     19         8     22.25
    Merculite Warhead      262     21         8     32.75
    High Energy X-Ray      386     23         9     42.89
    Scatter Pack Warhead   568     25        10     56.8
    Ionic Pulsar Warhead   836     28        11     76
    Energy Pulsar Warhead 1231     31        12    102.58
    Omega Warhead         1811     34        14    129.36
    Well, it seems like things are pretty clearcut for missiles.
    The better the warhead tech, the better the dmg / spc ratio, without much
    ado. When it comes to missiles, just get the best you can get, mount it on a
    heavy missile chassis, and you know it's just going to be a major bruiser.
    In terms of missiles per rack, remember the rules laid out in section 3 above:
    Missiles use some space, and racks use some more space.
    For your assault missiles, try to find the best balance between lasting power,
    sheer damage and saturation (see section 3.J on that matter).
    Regarding improvements, note that until Armor Piercing is patched in, don't
    tick that box.
    One final note: I haven't got a real clue about Warhead HP so far. Need to
    delve into that topic anytime soon...
    ///New v0.82
    TommyLV asked the following question on GameFaqs:
    "Is it better to fire many missiles that do less damage each or fewer missiles
    that do more damage per missile, total theoretical damage the same for each 
    My reply:
    That's actually a tricky question, for two reasons:
    1. I don't have any hard data for missile HP values (neither for hulls, BTW, 
    but that's beside this point). So it's kinda hard to know if it's harder to 
    blow up a high-tech warhead or not.
    2. Target saturation theory would recommend the double amount of missiles
    based on the raw data.
    But look at the table again, in particuliar in respect to raw damage, 
    respectively damage / space. One anionic energy warhead takes up 6 space, 
    compared to 12 for the energy pulsar. Thing is, two anionics bring a damage 
    potential of 164, vs 1231 for the energy pulsar.
    In other terms, you need 7.6x the space for equal damage - and that's just 
    considering warhead space - you need also to add 8 more racks which also 
    consume some space.
    Now, against a fighter, you'll clearly prefer the quantity, because most of 
    the damage gets wasted whenever an energy pulsar blows up a fighter. But 
    against a cap ship? Since space is limited anyway, you'll have, in practice,
    20 anionics in a volley vs. 10 energy pulsars. Now let's assume that missile
    hp is constant no matter the tech level, and that the enemy PD shoots down 
    consistently 9 incoming missiles: the 11 anionics going through will apply 
    902 damage, still 300 points less than the single energy pulsar.
    The cut-off point where you need to worry is when enemy PD manages to shoot 
    down 10 missiles, because obviously, your high-power volley just got wasted...
    Thing is, though, that the AI _never_ shoots volleys in numbers you could 
    achieve with fully mixed design ships in at least two TFs - which also means 
    that aside perhaps orions, nobody's gonna be able to stop volleys of 60some 
    per TF. So in solo, I'd recommend going for the high damage any day.
    In multiplayer, it can become trickier depending on your opponent. If both 
    human players practice saturation tactics, I'd say at max techs, building 
    around High-Energy X-Ray or Scatter Packs is probably gonna yield 
    the best results.
    As in 3.J, the last paragraph here remains largely theorycraft, as I don't
    multiplay. By all means, send me feedback on my assumptions!
    ==============  9 Electronics  =============================================
    To evaluate jamming and sensors is a tricky business, as the formulas involved
    in MOO3's calculations are probably anything but obvious stuff.
    I've been fiddling with my spreadsheets for hours and still lack any clue
    about a comprehensive formula about how Jamming / cloaking offsets detection.
    My main issue is to try to calculate the effective detection range versus
    jamming / cloaking, in other words, the distance beyond which a cloaked ship
    will remain invisible for each device used.
    In practice, detection devices use a value called OffTgtRg (Offense Target
    Range?), which seems matched against DefTgtRg (Defense Target Range?) used
    by cloaking devices. 
    Anyway, without more sterile ravings, here is the raw data. If someone can
    find out exactly how MOO3 calculates Invisibility range vs. Detection range,
    drop me an e-mail. I'm curious.
    ///New v0.82
    TommyLV posted this on Gamefaqs:
    For electronics here are my conclusions, they are reasonable but I make no 
    guarantee for their accuracy:
    The values given for ECM's, ECCM's, Cloaks and Sensors are multipliers that
    are made to the actual range to produce an apparent range. If the apparent 
    range is less than a certain value, the threshold detection value, then 
    detection occurs, if greater than the TDV then the target is still hidden.
    All the ECM's in a TF are counted.
    All the ECCM's in a TF are counted.
    Only the best Sensor in the TF is counted. (Al: I'm sceptical here...)
    Only the WORST Cloak in the TF is counted.
    Every ship needs a Cloak in order not to give away the TF. This fact may 
    explain the enemies penchant for attacking Transports and Colony TFs, no one 
    gives these ships Cloaks and they are easily detected.
    As for the worst Cloak being relevant, the easiest ship to see would be the 
    one that would give away the TF. 
    --------------( Detection )---------------------------------------------------
                Cost   Space  OffTgtRg
    ECCM I       30      15    0.87
    ECCM II      90      20    0.81
    ECCM III    150      35    0.67
    ECCM IV     210      55    0.5
    ECCM V      270      90    0.3
    Focus Det    30      15    0.85
    High-Caliber 90      20    0.79
    X-Ray Trans 150      35    0.63
    Adv Loc Sys 210      55    0.46
    Ultimate DS 270      90    0.25
    --------------( Cloaking )----------------------------------------------------
                       Cost  Space  DefTgtRg    Cloaking
    ECM I               30    15    1.12    
    ECM II              60    20    1.17    
    ECM III            120    35    1.33    
    ECM IV             240    55    1.6    
    ECM V              480    90    2.2    
    Cloaking Device     30    15    2.2        1.5
    Phased Cloaking     30    20    3.3        1.8
    Reactive Cloaking   30    35    4.95       3
    Ghost Device        30    55    7.425      7.425
    A quick glance on this table confirms that cloaking is both cheaper and more
    effective than jamming (ECM devices). However, cloaks can't be stacked.
    Also, cloaks have a Cloaking value. How this one is used is anyone's guess.
    Possibly, DefTgRg works for missile acquisition and is offset by ECCM, while
    Cloaking works for visual detection, and is only offset by sensors. If that is
    the case, this would mean that missiles might be able to target a fleet,
    while it remains untargettable by the main fleet? I wish I could do some
    serious multiplayer testing for that, but that almost requires a second MOO3
    CD - and this game is not THAT good.
    Post data patch, most values have been changed, apparently without much rhyme
    nor reason.
    In short, ECCM and sensors _seem_ to have become more powerful than ECM again.
    Without cloaking, detection has been made easier. In practice, I am under the
    impression my latest tests find guardians much quicker than before. That might
    be just me, though.
    ==============  10 Misc Tech Tables  =======================================
    --------------( System Drives )-----------------------------------------------
    For Drives (both warp and system), cost and space are multipliers of speed and
    hull size.
    Name                 Cost   Space    MaxSpeed
    Thrusters              25    0.25      1500
    Improved Thrusters     27    0.235     1800
    Hydrogen Fuel Cells    30    0.2325    2100
    Impulse Engine         32    0.218     2400
    Iridium Fuel Cells     35    0.2155    2700
    Dotomite Crystals      37    0.201     3000
    Uridium Fuel Cells     40    0.1995    3300
    Reajax Fuel Cells      42    0.185     3600
    Trilithium Crystals    50    0.183     3900
    Transwarp Drive        52    0.169     4200
    --------------( Warp Engines )------------------------------------------------
    Name                 Cost   Space    MaxWarp
    Retro Engine         100     0.25       85
    Nuclear Engine       126     0.235     105
    Sub-Light Drives     158     0.2325    133
    Fusion Drives        200     0.218     168
    Impulse Drives       252     0.2155    211
    Ion Drives           318     0.201     266
    Anti-Matter Drives   400     0.1995    336
    Inter-Phased Drives  502     0.185     422
    Hyper Drives         634     0.183     532
    Warp Factor X        800     0.169     672
    Small note: Warp Factor X's desc in the tech matrix window lists warp speed at
    532, a copy-paste error...
    For all drives, in most cases, better techs also use up less space, so keep
    that in mind when designing.
    Exceptions are Hydrogen fuel cells and Sub-light engines.
    As I tend to cap off system speed at 3000 for most ship types, I redesign all
    of them consistently after reaching Dotomite Crystals. 
    ==============  11 Credits and Thanks  =====================================
    This FAQ owes to the various contributions posted on both Gamefaqs' and
    Infogrames' official boards. Thanks to all the people who have posted their
    initial findings and who have commented on those, in particuliar GothFather, 
    and Visage.
    Ben mailed to point out that there's only one single Master not several -
    that error has now been corrected on both my FAQs. Thanks a bunch!
    Also thanks to Zhaneel and dakgm from the Gamefaqs boards for direct feedback.
    =============  12 Hosting Information  =====================================
    The latest update of this document can usually be found on gamefaqs.com
    Currently authorized hosts:

    FAQ Display Options: Printable Version