3r versus 3p armor

[LAN_Dad]

Why does the automatic upgrade favor 3r armor over 3p armor? Is there a way to switch this preference? Along a similar vein, I know that auto obsolete can be turned off, but is there a way to realign the preferences in auto obsolete?

[Chaos Theory]

3p armor is total garbage because it is in every way inferior to silksteel, except it is usually available sooner. 3r armor at least can be useful. To answer your question, I know of no way at all to change the obsolesence preferences, so I always turn it off.

[Major Guz]

I only use 3p armor when I do not have silksteel yet.
When I have silksteel, I still use the 3r armor in some bases which are more likely to come under attack by mindworms.
Sometimes I use combo's like trance (spec. ability) 3 pulse armor or vice versa.
With silksteel available 3p armor is absolutely obsolete.

Calculations based on disciplined morale (morale = +0)

silksteel = base value 4
3p = gross value 3 *1.25 pulse = 3.75
By the way, silksteel has a cost factor of 4 and 3p armor has a cost factor of 5. This means you pay more for a unit with less defense capability. You'd better use the Comm jammer special ability.
Comm jammer has an extra bonus. When attacking those rovers (usually A-1-2) with your laser 3pulse garrison (2-3p-1) the rover would disengage. With comm jammer faster units cannot disengage.

3 res however acts in psi combat.
silksteel = PSI defense 2 (standard land PSI defense factor)
3r = PSI factor 2 * 1.25 = 2.5 in defense
In this case 3 res armor is still useful (unless attacked in normal combat of course).
Of course silksteel costs 4 and 3 res costs 5, but it saves you a slot for the special ability.

After typing this I have a question, why do you like the 3p armor so much, LAN_Dad?

[livid imp]

Re: 3r versus 3p armor

Originally posted by LAN_Dad
Why does the automatic upgrade favor 3r armor over 3p armor?

AFAIK, It doesn't. If you are PSA beeline (and who isn't?), you will always discover Adaptive Doctrine(3p) before you discover Field Modulation(3r). My experience has been that the AI will upgrade you to whichever is the newer of the two.

But as CT already said 3p is garbage. It only has two advantages over plasma steel and it is not that piss-ant +25% defense to mobile attacks.

One is that on the PSA beeline I hit Adaptive Doc many years before I get either plasma steel or 3r. So in case I have a forward base that the AI is attcking, I can build 1-3p-1 defenders long before I'll discover HEC.

The second (and best) reason for 3p armor is a bug it creates when applying it to foil/cruisers. If you build a defensive or transport foil/cruiser with 3p armor (which costs no more than plasma steel on these ships) it makes Hypnotic Trance free. So a 0-3pt-6 transport cruiser costs the same as a 0-3-6 transport cruiser but is better protected from IoDs. Btw: the "pulse" (+25% to mobile) portion of 3p still only protects from rovers/hovertanks, not other ships and so is therefore useless by itself.

Other than those two instances, don't ever use 3p over good ol' fashion plasma steel. Plasma steel is some like half the cost over 3p on most fission units. I even use SynthMetal 1-2-1 defenders over expensive 1-3p-1 defenders in 95% of my bases.

OTHO 3r is useful as it stacks with Hypnotic Trance, NAmp, etc. making for some crazy tough psi defenders which also fairly good conventional defenders as well. Win-win.

[Chaos Theory]

I don't think it's a bug that trance is free when applied to a 3-pulse transport. The cost of trance is weapon / armor, rounded down. Transport has a weapon value of 4, and 3-pulse has an armor value (cost, that is) of 5. 4/5 = .8 -> 0. Note that in a post several months ago I detailed how even 0-cost abilities like trance on a defender will increase a unit's cost if it has two abilities that aren't deep radar.

[LAN_Dad]

First, I don't prefer pulse to silksteel (which is why the post said 3r vs 3p not 4), but I usually seem to get 3_ long before 4, and I'm usually going through my first quasi-major campaigns (offense or defense) before silksteel is available. But as to your question, my preference for pulse is based on the fact that my typical foe tends to use rovers rather than worms; resonance armor +25% defense against Psi, pulse +25% against speeders. So pulse would seem to be more helpful than resonance unless attacked by worms. Thus the reason for my post (and maybe I should have been more explicit), why the programmed preference for resonance? Is there something I'm missing?

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
I don't think it's a bug that trance is free when applied to a 3-pulse transport. The cost of trance is weapon / armor, rounded down. Transport has a weapon value of 4, and 3-pulse has an armor value (cost, that is) of 5. 4/5 = .8 -> 0. Note that in a post several months ago I detailed how even 0-cost abilities like trance on a defender will increase a unit's cost if it has two abilities that aren't deep radar.

You are probably right. I didn't know that transports had a "offense" value. Though I am still pretty sure it was cheaper though. I'll have to test it tonight.

Edit: I found the post describing the unit costs

[LAN_Dad]

Thanks for the quick responses; very helpful.

[Hercules]

Good discussion. Until I discover Silksteel, I find ( both when attacking and defending) that a unit with 3rt armour is a good tough defensive combo.

I should add I am thinking of air assault at this stage, which usually comes with a missile weapon capability when first discovered.

But I also think of the upgrade costs v having, say, the pulse defense there for a while.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by LAN_Dad
....my preference for pulse is based on the fact that my typical foe tends to use rovers....

Then you would still be better off with plasma steel ECM defenders 1-3+-1. They would give you +50% against rovers for 20 mins (I think) vs. 1-3p-1 which is +25% for about 40 mins.

I'm not 100% sure on those numbers, I'll try to look them up tonight.

[Blake]

1-3p-1 is 3 rows.
In some cases a +25% bonus for a +50% cost increase can be justified... say you have to fight close battles like plasma vs impact it is better to have a 1-3p-1 that takes 9 damage and can be repaired than a 1-3-1 that takes 11 damage... this is especially true if your support is rubbish and you get your fighting units via upgrading rather than building.

[Googlie]

Remember, though, that you can still put ECM capability on a 3p unit, for 0 cost, for a 5.62 defense capability against mobile units

[bondetamp]

Indeed. I would think that this would be the natural thing to do.

How does the computer deside defender, though? I've often found it frustrating that it pics an inferior unit to defend against a given foe.

[livid imp]

It actually picks the unit with the best odds of winning automagically. If you want to override this and pick the unit to defend in all cases, there is a command to do so. It is something like ctrl-D or Alt-D, or something, I forget. Look it up on the main menus in game.

I never use it except when I am just trying to get rid of an older unit I dont want to upgrade.

[Chaos Theory]

It calculates, for each unit, the attacker's strength, the defender's strength, and the defender's remaining health. It picks the unit with the highest dhealth * dstrength / astrength. Some exceptions might exist, such as I believe crawlers and probe teams do not defend unless no military units can defend, but I haven't confirmed this.