Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on December 12, 2015, 03:17:55 PM

Title: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on December 12, 2015, 03:17:55 PM
Currently there are only five ships with flight-decks in the game. The Condor, the Gemini, the Heron, the Astral, and the Odyssey. Of those, the Condor and the Gemini are refitted freighters, the Heron is a "fast carrier" which implies the existence of "slow carriers" of similar size, the Astral is exceedingly rare and only sold by Tri-Tach markets, and the Odyssey is similarly exceedingly rare and only sold by Tri-Tach but it's also a battlecruiser with a single flight-deck tacked on the back. We're missing military-spec destroyer-size carriers, military-spec slow carriers in the cruiser size, and something in the capital-size for people who don't join up with Tri-Tach. For the destroyer size, I'm thinking something mid-tech, with two flight decks and slower than the Condor or Gemini. For the cruiser size, something that can be the slow-carrier to the Heron's fast-carrier and as such was developed before the Heron, so low-tech, three flight decks, more armor and weapons, and yes, slow. For the capital size, 4 flight decks maybe 5, maybe 1 large missile slot and 2 mediums? Could be either low-tech or mid-tech.

Destroyer variety isn't very good either. There's the Enforcer, the Medusa, the Hammerhead, the Sunder, and the Buffalo Mark II. The Hammerhead isn't great; it doesn't have high enough armor or flux stats to be very tanky, and doesn't have enough weapon slots to really take advantage of Accelerated Ammo Feeds. It's at least cheap, both in initial cost and in maintenance costs, but it needs a bit of a buff. The Buffalo Mark II is kind of hilariously useless. The Sunder is a good ship; it's a glass cannon, and it does that very well, but it's too fragile to be the backbone of your fleet. That leaves the majority of the player's destroyer numbers to be made up of either Enforcers or Medusas, which are both great ships, but there only being two viable line destroyers isn't great for the game. We don't have a phase cloak equipped destroyer either, and a destroyer along the lines of the Medusa would probably have the perfect mix of firepower and mobility to really take advantage of the phase cloak system. It'd also open up the possibility of Tri-Tachyon fast pickets made entirely of phase cloak equipped ships, which would be quite a scary surprise indeed. I'd suggest giving the Hammerhead a buff, maybe moving the missile slots to the sides and adding small ballistic hard-points in their place as well as increasing its flux stats a tad, and adding another low-tech destroyer and a phase cloak equipped high-tech destroyer.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 12, 2015, 03:57:48 PM
There is also the Venture, but now it is slow (needs both tug and AE to get burn 9) and civilian.  It is also more of a missile boat than a gunship.

I like to see a cruiser-sized mini-Odyssey.  Something that is a faster hybrid gunship/carrier, with at least destroyer-grade firepower.

Another ship that could be fun to see is a super Conquest that is essentially the battlestar Galactica - a big (midline) battleship plus two flight decks.

More destroyers would be good.  As for Hammerhead, all it needs to be better is probably +5 more OP.  I like to see a phase destroyer too.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Aeson on December 12, 2015, 03:58:23 PM
For what it's worth, the Gemini is about what I'd expect a military-grade destroyer-scale carrier to look like. It's armed about as well as the Mule is (arguably better, if you include the drones), has a shield generator which is as efficient as most midline combat ships, and has flux capacity and dissipation which are about as good relative to its armament as what the combat destroyers have. The only things that say that the Gemini isn't a military-grade ship are the built-in hull mod, the description, and the low burn speed for a destroyer; the rest of it looks like it should be a military-grade ship. I also don't feel that there's really room for a two-deck destroyer-scale carrier that won't really cut into the Heron's niche (the Heron is already an extremely light cruiser whose only selling points are speed and flight decks), and there's not really a lot of room below the Gemini and Condor speed-wise either (at speed 40 for the Condor and 50 for the Gemini, the destroyer-scale carriers are already slower than most cruisers; drop to 30 and you're as slow as a Paragon).
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Cik on December 12, 2015, 11:08:41 PM
a more dedicated cruiser carrier might be neat. the speed is really almost irrelevant to me, it just needs to be relatively durable. the heron is alright but it doesn't really carry enough decks to effect the field much with just it's wings, and it's gun are not awful, but not heavy enough to where i could commit it to a fight without worrying greatly about whether it will survive.

the astral is a good carrier, but you're right in that something older might be nice to have, something with plenty of medium ballistics for a potent flak envelope and an older, rustier look.

in fact, just make the galactica :^)
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 13, 2015, 02:02:26 AM
Yeah the lore seems messed up on carriers.

The Heron's lore implies that it was new pre-collapse, although it doesn't share the ultra-modern look of such ships. It certainly looks older than the Astral or Odyssey.  It specifically says the Hegemony is wary of using it but it's in their list and their only other options are the civilian conversions.  Either the lore should change or there should be a new Hegemony-tech carrier.

I think you are being a little unfair to the Hammerhead, it trades 250 armor for a way better shield vs the Enforcer in terms of survivability.  It seems let down by its default variant more than anything, the standard version is built for close assault and it is unquestionably worse at that than the Enforcer.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Cik on December 13, 2015, 02:11:41 AM
hammerhead is an okay platform for hypervelocity drivers or maulers. though it's shield isn't nearly strong enough to really take damage. apply an ITU and slap on tactical lasers/hypervelocity and it's a competent standoff platform, though.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Serenitis on December 13, 2015, 04:04:03 AM
a new Hegemony-tech carrier.

A stripped out Dominator.
2 flight decks running down the middle from front to back. So it loses it's central engines, two rear small mounts, one forward small mount, and the middle missile mount.
Should probably take the large guns off it as well, and a lower speed because less engines.

A converted Onslaught.
Remove the large mounts from the wings, the smalls immediately aft of them, and the outermost missile mounts from either side.
In thier place have 4 flight decks, two each side.

Two slow tanky carriers made from what are probably the most prevalent ships in Hegemony space.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on December 13, 2015, 07:55:30 AM
The point about a 2-deck destroyer-size carrier eating too much into the Heron's niche is a good one, as is the point about the Gemini being almost what you'd expect out of a military-spec destroyer-size carrier. Perhaps a Hegemony militarized Gemini variant could be created? A Gemini (A)?
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 13, 2015, 07:59:43 AM
For a destroyer-sized carrier with two decks to be balanced (on paper), it would have no weapons at all.  One flight deck is worth about six small weapon mounts.

Funny how Gemini is faster than Condor in combat, but slower in the campaign.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Clockwork Owl on December 13, 2015, 08:08:52 AM
Beause thruster output doesn't contribute to sub-lightspeed drive maybe.

Geminis' flight deck is described as a small drone bay that can be used as a flight deck. It is current fighter replacement system -which makes a hangar bay behave like a blue police phone box - that makes Gemini a competent carrier.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Cik on December 13, 2015, 08:18:56 AM
2 deck carriers edging out the heron could be fixed just by giving the heron more decks

in fact, there's a whole thread i made about this very topic, opinions are opinions but i don't think buffing flight decks is going to make fighters suddenly overpowered or anything, they already suffer from a myriad problems including no officers, low range, low survivability, low speed etc. being able to re-arm slightly more of them while they are being slaughtered with marginal effect on the battlespace isn't something that's going to make the game into fightersector.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Schwartz on December 13, 2015, 08:31:13 AM
Heron would be fine with 3 decks, since it's overall short on OP and not the most offensive platform - though you can try to gear it that way. It could be balanced through CR.

The problem is that the current fleet limits already make 2 flight decks worth of fighters (~10 wings) difficult if you also want to be competitive within those limits. Officer skills will see a revamp towards defensive skills at some point, which should give fighters their speed edge back. Until then (or until we have fleet size exceptions for fighters), I don't really see anything with more decks than a Heron to be useful.

I'd also like to see another carrier cruiser with a different focus - maybe a slower 2-deck missile boat with built-in Flaks from late Core epoch. Maybe a militarized version of the Venture, since it's a cool ship that's now been graded down to a civilian craft. A phase destroyer would also be fun.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Cik on December 13, 2015, 08:37:14 AM

The problem is that the current fleet limits already make 2 flight decks worth of fighters (~10 wings)

i agree with the rest of your post but

que? 10 wings? two decks? HOW

i need like 2 wings per deck MAXIMUM to retain any of the things on the field for T+20 seconds first enemy contact. if there were a supercarrier with 12 decks i would use the thing!

what kind of battles are you fighting, man!

i'm derailing the thread but i'm very curious as to what the average enemy force you are facing is, because my experience is totally different!
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 13, 2015, 09:06:13 AM
What kills Venture for me is default burn of 7, and civilian grade does it no favors.  Burn 9 is the slowest I tolerate, and if I need to include a fuel-chugging tug in my fleet, that slow poke had better be an overpowered battleship, and the Venture does not make the cut.

Lately, I see plenty of enemy fleets with about 40 ships, with non-fighters exceeding 25 ships.  The 25 ship limit for players is too low.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Serenitis on December 13, 2015, 11:29:42 AM
Lately, I see plenty of enemy fleets with about 40 ships, with non-fighters exceeding 25 ships.  The 25 ship limit for players is too low.
Personally, I preferred the logistics pool which grew with your character skills.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Aeson on December 13, 2015, 12:58:59 PM
a new Hegemony-tech carrier.

A stripped out Dominator.
2 flight decks running down the middle from front to back. So it loses it's central engines, two rear small mounts, one forward small mount, and the middle missile mount.
Should probably take the large guns off it as well, and a lower speed because less engines.

A converted Onslaught.
Remove the large mounts from the wings, the smalls immediately aft of them, and the outermost missile mounts from either side.
In thier place have 4 flight decks, two each side.

Two slow tanky carriers made from what are probably the most prevalent ships in Hegemony space.
Given what we know about the Hegemony, I don't think that they'd be all that likely to convert Dominators or Onslaughts to carriers given the choice. It looks to me like the Hegemony's naval doctrine falls more or less into the battleship school of pre-WWII naval thought - battleships and heavy cruisers are the centerpieces of the fleet and provide most of its striking power, and anything else exists to support those vessels, with any carriers being present so as to provide scouting support with their fighter groups. A big, heavy carrier like you'd get from converting a Dominator or especially an Onslaught doesn't really feel appropriate to this, especially since in Starsector you don't really have a lower bound on the size of a ship that has the speed and endurance to operate with the battle group and the lower bound on the size of ship necessary to fit a flight deck is at the destroyer scale whereas Dominators are at the high side of the cruiser scale and Onslaughts are (obviously) capital-scale; something that big with that many flight decks (and the correspondingly large fighter group) is more appropriate to the carrier school of pre-WWII naval thought - carriers are the centerpieces of the fleet and their fighter groups provide most of the fleet's striking power, while the rest of the fleet is there to protect and support the carriers. In short, I feel that the mindset of the Hegemony is that it doesn't need (and certainly doesn't want) heavy carriers with big fighter groups forming a major component of any of its larger fleets and task forces, certainly not at the expense of perfectly good Dominators and Onslaughts when it can afford to outfit them properly, and I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if converting an already-completed Onslaught or Dominator to be a carrier was similarly expensive to and not much faster than just building a new carrier even before including the cost of the base ship.

I could perhaps see a conversion that gave an Onslaught or Dominator the Odyssey treatment - sacrifice a bit of firepower for a flight deck, enabling the ship to provide its own fighter scouts without the added cost of a separate, relatively vulnerable carrier - but overall I really don't see anything wrong with the Hegemony's currently-available carriers or employment thereof, given my understanding of its fleet doctrine. In all honesty, though, I'd tend to expect that carrier conversions of Onslaughts or Dominators, if such exist, come from weaker factions that acquire such a ship but cannot really afford to field it in its original configuration.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: harrumph on December 13, 2015, 02:34:16 PM
FWIW, high-tech ships aren't exclusively used by Tri-Tachyon; independent fleets and the Sindrian Diktat Lion's Guard use them too (including the Astral and Odyssey). And they do show up in the black market once in a blue moon.

I agree that more carriers and destroyers would be welcome. I think Alex is already planning to add more military destroyers, though.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Cik on December 13, 2015, 06:17:32 PM
you're probably right about hegemony doctrine, however the domain probably experimented with heavy carriers at one point in it's probably thousands of years long history. examples of this probably exist somewhere. make the sindrians into the carrier faction and you'd go a long way towards distinguishing them from the hegemony

this already might be the case though, i notice whenever i play a sindrian fleet in nexrelin they usually start with four herons on the military market. it'd be nice however if they had a heavier, less mobile ship. the heron's not a bad ship but it's not my favorite.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Schwartz on December 13, 2015, 08:23:20 PM
I fight high-end bounties, Diktat and Hegemony fleets. My fleet has maxed officers but not that many capital ships. A Heron, some Broadswords, Thunders, Daggers and Xyphos evenly split. It was more of a struggle mid-game, and I did notice occasionally that a Wasp or Gladius wing would run out of replacements during combat, but even then no wing was ever removed from a lack of deck space. If your stuff is dying too quickly, maybe you're letting it run into nasty PD? I usually spread fighters out a bit, have them take as many map points as it's feasible. The +Armor skill is also essential as it buffs fighters also.

It's probably gotten a little harder for fighters since officers were introduced, but in various fighter / carrier discussions in the past it was generally the consensus that a flight deck can manage 4-5 wings.

Re: Venture. Yep, the civilian-grade hull and speed have unfortunately made this cruiser even less attractive. And it doesn't have to be that bad. It's certainly a tough nut, and I never thought of it as a civilian craft. So a 'back to the roots' military Venture would be pretty cool.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Plantissue on December 14, 2015, 02:34:54 PM
I think I have seen Hegemony fleets with herons though I may be mistaken. That said, it really doesn't make sense that factions only sell certain ships from military markets. Aren't they supposed to not be able to decide which ships they can produce, so really they should keep all of their prefered ships and sell the ships they don't want?
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 14, 2015, 02:57:51 PM
Hegemony uses Herons frequently once they start cranking out high-powered fleets.  After wiping out several Hegemony fleets, almost every high-powered Hegemony security fleet or patrol has at least one Heron, often two, and occasionally more!
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Clockwork Owl on December 14, 2015, 03:51:31 PM
I have seen 4 in a fleet. All of them trying to maintain safe distance... the battle took long.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Pushover on December 14, 2015, 05:54:39 PM
Another thing that is missing is a Cruiser sized freighter. The Cruiser hulls with the most cargo are the Venture (500), Starliner (500), and then the Apogee (450).

There is a lack of combat destroyers, and a lack of civilian cruisers.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 15, 2015, 01:15:11 AM
do we really need a cruiser freighter?

The smaller freighters fit the role of small shippers, and any cruiser freighter would be overshadowed by the Atlas, and the aforementioned Cruisers already carry enough cargo for most purposes.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 15, 2015, 06:24:33 AM
do we really need a cruiser freighter?

The smaller freighters fit the role of small shippers, and any cruiser freighter would be overshadowed by the Atlas, and the aforementioned Cruisers already carry enough cargo for most purposes.
Now that the Venture has been ruined, yes!  Other high-cargo cruisers are either inefficient (Starliner) and/or too rare (Apogee).  There is a big difference between 300 for Buffalo/Tarsus and 2,000 for Atlas.

Atlas maxes at burn 8, which is too slow for comfort.  Most trades do not need that much cargo hauled.  The only use I can see for Atlas now is to store loot from multiple patrol/security fleet kills in hostile systems with no safe place to stash loot (e.g., Eos Exodus).
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Clockwork Owl on December 15, 2015, 06:42:21 AM
Cargo space to (supply/month) rate is 10:1 for Tarsus and Buffalo, and 20:1 for Atlas. Efficiency doubles. Actual cargo space jumps from 300 to 2000 too.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 08:09:14 AM
do we really need a cruiser freighter?

The smaller freighters fit the role of small shippers, and any cruiser freighter would be overshadowed by the Atlas, and the aforementioned Cruisers already carry enough cargo for most purposes.
Now that the Venture has been ruined, yes!  Other high-cargo cruisers are either inefficient (Starliner) and/or too rare (Apogee).  There is a big difference between 300 for Buffalo/Tarsus and 2,000 for Atlas.

Atlas maxes at burn 8, which is too slow for comfort.  Most trades do not need that much cargo hauled.  The only use I can see for Atlas now is to store loot from multiple patrol/security fleet kills in hostile systems with no safe place to stash loot (e.g., Eos Exodus).

Exactly my thoughts. How many times I wished there was a medium freighter something that would be bigger than the small freighters that would have higher speed than Atlas. I like keeping my fleet small without capital ships sometimes, until I reach the point where I feel it is time for an end game. That includes the slow Atlas sadly. I do not per se though agree that this much cargo is not needed. Many times I load up different commodities that I find good prices for to drop them off at my homebase and the other way around, I fill my fleet with different commodities that are needed on the same system.


Cargo space to (supply/month) rate is 10:1 for Tarsus and Buffalo, and 20:1 for Atlas. Efficiency doubles. Actual cargo space jumps from 300 to 2000 too.

Don't forget  also that you need to sacrifice 7 ship slots from you 25 ones in vanilla, compared to the 1 that the Atlas gets.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Plantissue on December 15, 2015, 08:38:09 AM
I don't mind not having a pure cruiser class freighter. It feels so artifical to have one, when the reason for its existance is the limited ship slots in the current version of the game. I very much prefer the previous fleet system. The only problem with the previous sytem was the extremely low beginning fleet logistics setting of 20.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 08:48:50 AM
I don't mind not having a pure cruiser class freighter. It feels so artifical to have one, when the reason for its existance is the limited ship slots in the current version of the game. I very much prefer the previous fleet system. The only problem with the previous sytem was the extremely low beginning fleet logistics setting of 20.

The most important reason to have one is burn speed, not ship slots. It will be faster than the Capital Atlas, thus making it more desirable if you have a fast fleet and do not want to be slowed down by the Atlas. I do not really like the vanilla 25 but the SS+ 35 is great. Be it though the old or new system, the vanilla game won't have you managing an enormous fleet.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Plantissue on December 15, 2015, 09:26:49 AM
Large or small fleet is just a question of relativity. If vanilla had fleets that didn't exceed your fleet limit, they would feel far better. Anyways talking about mods is fairly pointless as you can always reply to virtually every disatisfaction with modding. Want faster burn speed Atlas's? Why don't you just mod the burn speed? Want a cruiser freighter. Mod one in. Want a larger fleet limit? Why don't you just mod it. Obviously we are talking about the base game, as it is the very thing we want to affect.

As it is in the game, Buffalos are burn speed 9. Is that not fast enough? As it is, the only possible reason for a "medium" size freighter in real life is for a military freighter of a very specific military role. There really isn't a reason for a civilian one.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 09:50:26 AM
Large or small fleet is just a question of relativity. If vanilla had fleets that didn't exceed your fleet limit, they would feel far better. Anyways talking about mods is fairly pointless as you can always reply to virtually every disatisfaction with modding. Want faster burn speed Atlas's? Why don't you just mod the burn speed? Want a cruiser freighter. Mod one in. Want a larger fleet limit? Why don't you just mod it. Obviously we are talking about the base game, as it is the very thing we want to affect.

As it is in the game, Buffalos are burn speed 9. Is that not fast enough? As it is, the only possible reason for a "medium" size freighter in real life is for a military freighter of a very specific military role. There really isn't a reason for a civilian one.

I did not mean that with mods you can get a better fleet size. I meant that 35 felt better that the vanilla that is trying to keep it more capped. This is why I said, be it we had the old system or the new, the limit would still remain capped. So it does not matter if the old system returned, they would still keep it low as it was, if not slightly higher and only mods or the played editing the number himself would change that. I definitely am happy with the new ship limit, but that is because I like  the idea of using a lot of capital ships in some playthroughs.

Buffalos are fine as they are, but the fact is that Atlas' speed is 6 and Buffalo's 9. It would be nice to have something in between these, rather than going straight from 6 to 9 and 300 to 2000. A cruiser class freighter with 8 speed and 600-650 cargo size and higher maintenance in total would be nice because with just augmented engines they would be able to keep up the 9 speed.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: DeMatt on December 15, 2015, 10:07:29 AM
With the change to "Hybrid" small mounts, I think the Hammerhead is almost to the right power level, as that lets you slot in more ballistics to take advantage of your Ammo Feeder.  I think, if I was going to make any changes to it, it'd be to tweak up its Ordnance Points.  85, I think, would be about right.

The Venture needs more of a buff, I'd say, to make it stand out in the cruiser range.  In this case, I'd increase the size of the cargo hold - 750 would seem to be in the right range, and would make it more of the "mobile base" I think it's intended to be.  Bumping its burn speed would be too much of a buff.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 15, 2015, 10:38:46 AM
I view Atlas as effectively having 1000 cargo, since a tug has no cargo.  Tug is mandatory for the Atlas (or else you are dragging along at an even slower burn 7 - totally unacceptable!)  Destroyer-sized freighter can get burn 9 or 10 by themselves, and tugs cannot go faster than burn 9.

As for mods, if I need to resort to mods to "fix" something, I would give myself a "Give me everything, give me 'UNLIMITED POWER!', kill all enemies, I win!" button.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 15, 2015, 10:46:51 AM
Quote
Buffalos are fine as they are, but the fact is that Atlas' speed is 6 and Buffalo's 9. It would be nice to have something in between these, rather than going straight from 6 to 9 and 300 to 2000. A cruiser class freighter with 8 speed and 600-650 cargo size and higher maintenance in total would be nice because with just augmented engines they would be able to keep up the 9 speed.
There's already a choice for a burn 9 freighter though, so what does it add? Either it's better than the Buffalo, or worse than the Buffalo, or effectively identical.  

The only reason I can see is designing ships around the fleet limit which is bad practice IMO.  That exists to keep things sane; it should not be determining ship roles.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 11:08:05 AM
As for mods, if I need to resort to mods to "fix" something, I would give myself a "Give me everything, give me 'UNLIMITED POWER!', kill all enemies, I win!" button.

To each his own I guess. Modding a game to me just gives it a potential to be liked by people with different views, likes and dislikes and playstyles. If a person wants to change the ship limit of his fleet to match the ship limit of the fleets of the PC, for some it might look ok, since now he can have the same fleet size as the biggest one the AI can have and for others it will be an overkill, since the player ships are usually OP compared to the AI in both logic and weapons. Definitely to each his own.


Quote
Buffalos are fine as they are, but the fact is that Atlas' speed is 6 and Buffalo's 9. It would be nice to have something in between these, rather than going straight from 6 to 9 and 300 to 2000. A cruiser class freighter with 8 speed and 600-650 cargo size and higher maintenance in total would be nice because with just augmented engines they would be able to keep up the 9 speed.
There's already a choice for a burn 9 freighter though, so what does it add? Either it's better than the Buffalo, or worse than the Buffalo, or effectively identical.  

The only reason I can see is designing ships around the fleet limit which is bad practice IMO.  That exists to keep things sane; it should not be determining ship roles.

I am sorry that I do not see it like you do. Sure if you add augmented engines to what I said it will give it 9 burn speed, but comparatively the buffalo with augmented engines reaches 10. Maybe I am just weird that I do not feel that comparing 2 ships with different hullmods is just not fair.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 15, 2015, 12:25:47 PM
Quote
I am sorry that I do not see it like you do. Sure if you add augmented engines to what I said it will give it 9 burn speed, but comparatively the buffalo with augmented engines reaches 10. Maybe I am just weird that I do not feel that comparing 2 ships with different hullmods is just not fair.
I add Augmented Engines to everything (except Hyperion and the few rare ships with too few OP, like tugs).  It is just that good.  I have no problem taking hullmods into account.  For example, you want to play with Gryphon, you will get Missile Specialization and Expanded Missile Racks because that ship is all about missiles.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
I add Augmented Engines to everything (except Hyperion and the few rare ships with too few OP, like tugs).  It is just that good.  I have no problem taking hullmods into account.  For example, you want to play with Gryphon, you will get Missile Specialization and Expanded Missile Racks because that ship is all about missiles.

No I mean if you compare a ship that with an augmented engine, you should compare it to another one with an augmented engine. That means Buffalo would have burn level 10 and the one I suggested would be 9. I mean if we compare ships like that and say "since that burn level has already a freighter". Why we need any other freighter? Like adding a capital ship with normal 8 burn speed and with the augmented engine 9 and then comparing it to the vanilla speed of buffalo, I can say why we need for example a tarsus? Atlas with an augmented engine and a tug can go to 8 like the tarsus and it definitely has more cargo size.

This is why I do not see why the buffalo having 9 burn speed automatically makes that burn level covered and no other freighter is needed.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: xenoargh on December 15, 2015, 12:49:00 PM
Quote
I think, if I was going to make any changes to it, it'd be to tweak up its Ordnance Points.  85, I think, would be about right.
I'm in agreement about this change for the Hammerhead; that would fix it, more armor would fix it, more speed would fix it; it's just on the wrong side of the Useful cusp.  Really close to good now, though; the Hybrid slots really helped quite a lot, by making it a halfway-good shield-wrecker up close.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Plantissue on December 15, 2015, 02:32:30 PM
I think the Hammerhead has the right amount of OP. Enought to fully equip it with weapons with an expected amount of OP left over. it could be that the Medusa has an obscene amount of spare OP though. I'm not too sure what it is about the Hammerhead that doesn't make it seem useful. It has a reasonably good shield with reasonably good armour and HP. Yet it doesn't seem that survivable.  The Enforcer with its omnishield deals with missiles well and with its armour and burn system can vent and run away from difficult situations. The Medusa not only take massive shield damage on its omnishield but has the excellent phase skimmer system. They both appear to be extremely survivable. Perhaps it is a perception bias since it is somewhat easy to kill with certain frigates by shooting its rear, but those same frigates can take out similar cruisers with the same tactics as well as the Sunder. Perhaps it is the perception that the Sunder is meant to be easily killed that it gains a free pass.

Or perhaps it is that the Hammerhead doesn't seem to have very many weapons. 2 medium ballistic mounts appear excellent, but most of the time, if you do fight with Hammerheads, it appears to be equipped with trash weapons. In theory the Hammerhead can be used as a long range kiting ship bombarding from afar like the line ship it is supposed to be, taking damage on it's 300 degree shields. But if you really wanted medium range ballistic mounts, the Hound and Cerberus do exist, though on not as tough hulls as the Hammerhead. The Hammerhead feels like it lacks firepower compared with the other destroyers, so perhaps it needs an additional 2 small ballistic mounts on the front or something more drastic like replacing the missile mounts with more medium ballistic mounts or replacing the entire frontal layout with 8 small ballistics. In the end, there is something wrong with the Hammerhead and I am not quite sure what it is.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 15, 2015, 02:40:54 PM
Hammerhead feels a bit OP starved like the current Gryphon.  If you maximize OP skills, you have enough if you stick with only the basics.  It does not have enough to afford luxuries such as elite weapons or an extra hullmod or two like a standard Enforcer, let alone Enforcer XIV.

Hammerhead has flux stats nearly as bad as Enforcer.  The flux discount on the Ammo Feeder system helps a bit, or at least it does not kill itself so easily.

Currently, hybrid mounts helped in that you can mount cheaper yet superior ballistics (that synergize with ammo feeder system) or ion cannon or tactical laser.  Vulcan is more efficient PD than beams, though no match for Enforcer's flak.

All Hammerhead needs is +5 OP and maybe a bit more flux.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 02:50:18 PM
I do wonder. Is it bad that within good fighter choices, there are some worse ones? As in when you go to buy something, in all games, there is something worse and something better. Rather than altering the Hammerhead itself, wouldn't it be better if there was a MKII or somehow a different variant. To me it just feel more realistic for there to be a ladder when it comes to choices.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 15, 2015, 03:01:13 PM
As a dedicated combat ship, the Hammerhead should be competitive, not be much worse than its peers.  It is better than before, but not quite at peer level.

An elite variant would be nice.  The Enforcer has one.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: harrumph on December 15, 2015, 05:21:57 PM
You can deploy three Hammerheads for the same cost as two Medusas. I think people overlook that.

I tend to gravitate towards destroyer-heavy fleets (one capital ship, one carrier, maybe a dozen destroyers, plus a few frigates, fighters, and auxiliary ships). Mostly Medusas and Enforcers, but I always keep a few Hammerheads around—to fill in the cracks when deployment points are tight, as second-string combatants when other ships have diminished CR, as backup flagships, etc.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 15, 2015, 05:30:56 PM
They are overlooked because the costs are not that significant late in the game.

The biggest problem with Medusa is the most powerful flagship configurations use rare weapons (e.g., Heavy Blaster, Railgun, and/or Light Needler).  Replacing them can be harder than replacing some ships.  Enforcer and Hammerhead, on the other hand, are more common, and they do not need rare weapons (except possibly HVDs) to fight well.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: harrumph on December 15, 2015, 05:39:25 PM
They are overlooked because the costs are not that significant late in the game.

Depends on your playstyle. I know many people prefer to chain-deploy single ships, and it's true that the Hammerhead is basically useless for such a strategy. If you prefer to actually deploy up to the limit, however, those costs matter. The limit can be as low as 80 points, even in the very late game. Say you're piloting an Onslaught—choosing between three Medusas and five Hammerheads for the rest of your deployment isn't totally obvious (I'd take three Medusas and a Lasher over five Hammerheads, but I'd at least think about it).
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 15, 2015, 05:50:32 PM
You mean max battle size?  Okay, that can a problem.  I set mine to the max (500) because I want entire fleets to be deployed, and the default settings do not always let the player do that, especially since 0.7+ raised the costs of bigger ships.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Pushover on December 15, 2015, 06:06:30 PM
I think the issue is that the Hammerhead suffers from an identity crisis. The Sunder is all about it's Large Energy slot, and dishing the damage out against larger vessels. The Medusa has great mobility, amazing at picking engagements with the Phase Skimmer. The Enforcer is a brick of armor, tough to chew through, with reasonable firepower, aiming for sustained damage and out-tanking the enemy ships. The Hammerhead is under-armed compared to the Enforcer (5 mediums + 4 small missiles vs 2 mediums, 4 small universals + 2 small missiles), less well armored, does less burst than a Sunder, and is less mobile than a Medusa.

RE: Cruiser freighter, I think what I'd be looking for is something like a bigger version of the Buffalo Mk 2, where it provides missile support if you choose to deploy it. The Venture could also get more cargo space, and it would be useful because it has a flight deck.

The problem with the Buffalo (and Atlas) is that it tends to crowd out the other options. They are straight up +Cargo for -Supplies/mo. You will never deploy either in a fight, especially since the flight deck on the Atlas was removed. No one uses the Mule or the Tarsus, even though they are better armored/armed/faster than a Buffalo, because they cost too much in supplies and provide less cargo space, and they are ineffective as combat ships. It may be good for the freighters to become slightly better in combat to the point where you can consider deploying them. As is, the only freighter that you will deploy (excluding the Hound, which isn't really a freighter IMO) is the Gemini due to its flight deck. Without the Buffalo, would you take the Tarsus with its speed? Or would you take a Mule with its armor and guns? Or would you pick up some fighter wings and get a Gemini? I feel like there should be more incentives to deploy freighters in combat, or at least have defending freighters be more prominent than just 'smash all 10 ships with my 1 while the rest of the fleet sits back.'
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 06:19:34 PM
The problem with the Buffalo (and Atlas) is that it tends to crowd out the other options. They are straight up +Cargo for -Supplies/mo. You will never deploy either in a fight, especially since the flight deck on the Atlas was removed.

I am sorry but, with a mindset that is less of a fighter and of a trader, I am glad Atlas and Buffalo are not made for battle. When I see battle freighters I do not think they are made to enter a battle and fight. I see them created to withstand a battle when they end up being part of your fleet being chased. I would prefer my cargo to be stored in a ship that does not get hailed by missiles, laser beams and thousands of bullets. They are meant to be left behind, while the rest of the fleet shields them, so I can deliver my cargo safely.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Pushover on December 15, 2015, 06:28:14 PM
The problem with the Buffalo (and Atlas) is that it tends to crowd out the other options. They are straight up +Cargo for -Supplies/mo. You will never deploy either in a fight, especially since the flight deck on the Atlas was removed.

I am sorry but, with a mindset that is less of a fighter and of a trader, I am glad Atlas and Buffalo are not made for battle. When I see battle freighters I do not think they are made to enter a battle and fight. I see them created to withstand a battle when they end up being part of your fleet being chased. I would prefer my cargo to be stored in a ship that does not get hailed by missiles, laser beams and thousands of bullets. They are meant to be left behind, while the rest of the fleet shields them, so I can deliver my cargo safely.

My problem then comes from the fact that from the perspective of the player, it's not even worth considering a bunch of ships because another ship is cheaper and hauls more cargo. It doesn't make sense in a real life perspective that your lone Medusa can hold off 10 frigates while you have 5 juicy Buffaloes hiding from the pirates. The smart pirate would occupy your Medusa with 7 frigates while the other 3 have a good time with your Buffaloes. I don't like how there are no downsides for playing 'pick the highest ratio of supplies:cargo space.'
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 15, 2015, 06:38:59 PM
My problem then comes from the fact that from the perspective of the player, it's not even worth considering a bunch of ships because another ship is cheaper and hauls more cargo. It doesn't make sense in a real life perspective that your lone Medusa can hold off 10 frigates while you have 5 juicy Buffaloes hiding from the pirates. The smart pirate would occupy your Medusa with 7 frigates while the other 3 have a good time with your Buffaloes. I don't like how there are no downsides for playing 'pick the highest ratio of supplies:cargo space.'

As a player that plays with reloading and all relaxed, indeed I do not care for anything than cargo and speed. Thus a lot of freighters become redundant. But for someone that play ironman, I doubt cargo size is the ONLY thing they will look at. There is no reloading if you did the wrong thing in battle, or try agian because you decided to do something stupid. If you lose, you retreat with all you have and try to keep what you can alive. That is when the current battle freighters and more robust than buffalo freighters become not just an option, but what people would prefer.  So the other freighters by no means lose their value. If anything the weak buffalo and ultra slow Atlas become bad choices.

I do not think though hiding your cargo freighters a bit away with transponders off and keeping your ships on high profile ot interfere with pirates lookign for your cargo ships is impossible.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Aeson on December 15, 2015, 07:42:23 PM
Quote
it could be that the Medusa has an obscene amount of spare OP though.
If you take the four frontline destroyers without any skills increasing ordnance points, assume that small mount weapons consume 5 OP, medium mount weapons consume 10 OP, and large mount weapons consume 20 OP, then the Medusa has 35 OP left over after filling all its weapon mounts while the Enforcer, Sunder, and Hammerhead each have 30 OP left over. From Computer Systems, Mechanical Engineering, and Technology Aptitude, a Medusa can gain up to 27 OP, an Enforcer can gain up to 30 OP, a Sunder can gain up to 28 OP, and a Hammerhead can gain up to 24 OP; under the above assumptions about the armament, that would leave the Medusa with 62 spare OP, the Enforcer with 60, the Sunder with 58, and the Hammerhead with 54. From Optimized Assembly (Ordnance Expertise 10), a Medusa can gain up to 11 OP, an Enforcer can gain 14 OP, a Sunder can gain 13 OP, and a Hammerhead can gain 10 OP. Assuming that Optimized Assembly is the only OP bonus in effect, a Medusa would have 46 spare OP, an Enforcer would have 44, a Sunder would have 43, and a Hammerhead would have 40; if both Optimized Assembly and the full OP bonus from Technology Aptitude, Mechanical Engineering, and Computer Systems are in play, then this would leave the Medusa with 73 spare OP, the Enforcer with 74, the Sunder with 71, and the Hammerhead with 64.

Without looking at specific variants of the ships, then, it would appear as though the Medusa does not have a significant advantage in OP over the other combat destroyers under any set of skills you choose; only the Hammerhead lags behind to any significant degree. I certainly wouldn't say from these numbers that the Medusa has anything like an 'obscene' amount of spare OP, at least not by comparison with the other frontline combat destroyers.


If, as suggested, the Hammerhead is given an additional 5 OP, then under the above set of assumptions about the cost of the armament, a fully-armed Hammerhead with no skill bonuses has 35 spare OP (same as the Medusa, 5 more than the Enforcer or Sunder), 45 with Optimized Assembly only, 60 with Tech 10 + ME 10 + CS 10 but no Optimized Assembly, or 70 with both Optimized Assembly and full OP bonuses.


Regarding the comments about the Venture:
I don't really see any good reason to improve it. For a "civilian" ship, it's already quite well armed (armament is roughly equivalent to that of the Falcon, and then you get to add in a flight deck on top of that) and extraordinarily resilient (between a shield generator which, at 1 flux/damage, is fairly efficient for a low-tech ship, a rather deep flux pool for a ship with only 3 flux-generating weapons, and the second-best hull strength and armor rating of any cruiser, a Venture can take quite a beating). On top of that, it has the greatest cargo capacity of any cruiser (though the Apogee and Starliner are close seconds, at 450 to the Venture's 500), it's tied for greatest fuel capacity among cruisers with the Apogee (300 each; Starliner at 250 is the only real second-place option due to the Dominator's higher fuel consumption), and it's a more efficient freighter in cargo*ly/fuel1 than any of the destroyer-scale freighters or any other cruiser (167 cargo*ly/fuel for the Venture as compared to 150 cargo*ly/fuel for the most efficient cruisers and destroyer-scale freighters).

The Venture may not have any one outstanding aspect, but it's a reasonably good all-around ship whose only major weaknesses are its civilian-grade hull, its reliance on missiles and its relatively low speed.

1I care far more about cargo*ly/fuel than I do about cargo*months/supply when looking at freighter efficiency. Burn speeds appear to have changed so that a ship moves at 0.1*(burn level) light years per day, so a Venture moving at rated speed in hyperspace is consuming 0.7*3 = 2.1 fuel per day, as opposed to just 15/30 = 0.5 supplies per day when not recovering CR; unless my activities lead me to spend considerably more time idle or in system than in hyperspace, or unless supplies are considerably more expensive than fuel, the greater part of the travel expenses for my fleet's freighters are going to come from fuel costs.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Thaago on December 16, 2015, 12:03:46 AM
I'm a Venture fan boy, but I haven't used any yet this version because they are slow and 'loud'.

I would be very happy if they lost the Civilian tag and went up to burn 8. That would keep them in line with the Mule - a cruiser sized combat freighter. In combat they are just fine.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: TaLaR on December 16, 2015, 12:25:04 AM
Maybe civilians should lose -1 burn penalty? Currently they have pretty much same penalties as (D) ships (bad sensor stats, low burn, low combat ability), and as we know (D) ships are intended to be useless to player.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 16, 2015, 02:34:52 AM
i think there should actually be a lot slower ships, if AI fleets didn't bottom out at burn 7-8 then maybe players wouldn't feel forced to have burn 8-9+ always

i.e. onslaughts burn 5 or 6.

Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 16, 2015, 05:48:24 AM
I would use Venture if it had base burn of 8.  It is not overpowered enough justify the tug.  Civilian hull is an annoyance when trying to sneak into markets undetected.

Actually, civilian hull is most annoying for blocking Safety Override.  If I want a frigate-sized freighter, I use Wolves, Hounds, and Cerberus because they can stack speed mods and flee from any pursuit with ease.

Re: Hammerhead analysis
Hammerhead has fewer weapons than its peers, yet the hull costs more than an Enforcer at a market.  If I have a choice between Enforcer and Hammerhead, I pick Enforcer every time.  Hammerhead could make up for lack of weapons with either superior stats (more OP or other stats) or cheaper price tag at the market.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: harrumph on December 16, 2015, 06:52:01 AM
How about just adding a Venture (A)? Give it Militarized Hegemony Auxiliary instead of Civilian-grade Hull, burn 8, a couple more small turret points, and a new paint job.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Clockwork Owl on December 16, 2015, 06:58:23 AM
Re: Hammerhead analysis
Hammerhead has fewer weapons than its peers
And main cannon mounts are hardpoints.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Thaago on December 16, 2015, 10:32:19 AM
At high tech levels the Hammerhead has some really cool potential configurations, but just lacks the OP to do them. For example, an Area Denial build with 4 Tacs, 2 HVDs, Advanced Optics, ITU, point defense targetting (thats the wrong name, but you know what I mean), extended shields, unstable injector... That would fill a niche that none of the other destroyers can match - long range, kinetic + beam. Essentially the same role that the Eagle excels at, only with some added oomph from the ammo feeder. It just doesn't have the OP's for it.

I vote for +10 OP rather than 5 - it is neither the fastest, nor the toughest, nor the most powerful, so let it have the most configurable options or mount the most elite weaponry.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 16, 2015, 10:44:47 AM
I tried Mauler + HVD + Tactical Lasers on Hammerhead.  It lacks the OP to do that well, namely having no OP left for missiles or capacitors (or additional hullmods beyond engines and ITU), and not enough flux capacity for its shields to withstand much of a beating.  Like the Enforcer, Hammerhead needs about 10 capacitors to have enough flux to absorb damage on shields and fight back.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 16, 2015, 10:57:29 AM
I still find hammerhead the awesome cheap support fighters with a cool looking design. I have had many times hammerheads in my team, but never enforcers. But still no matter what, I hope instead of buffing the hammerhead, there will appear another variant. It adds to the immersion to see weak, cheap machines in the world, meant to be there as quantity vs quality. But indeed I would love to see a strong version of the hammerhead, but that is because I find it's look really awesome. The Tiandong variant is one of my favorite ships for sure, at least when playing a modded game.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 16, 2015, 11:20:10 AM
If the Hammerhead is meant to be sub-par, its market value should be less than Enforcer.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 16, 2015, 11:28:17 AM
i'm not sure that the current meta of builds with super mod stacking are healthy for the game.

i think that is probably a consequence of the skill system more than anything else though

Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 16, 2015, 11:30:38 AM
If the Hammerhead is meant to be sub-par, its market value should be less than Enforcer.

Oh I did not know that Enforces are close to price. I am sorry but that is one ship I have never gave a chance to prove itself sadly. I would say that the hammerhead seems better to me. But considering a lot of veterans say that they are one of the best, it would be silly for me to say they are not, since I never really used them.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 16, 2015, 12:57:25 PM
Enforcer hull costs less than Hammerhead hull.  I guess that is to make up that Enforcers can mount 14 small mounts worth of weapons while Hammerhead only has 10 small mounts worth.  Credit costs suggest that Enforcer and Hammerhead should be comparable in strength.

Hammerhead seems to be designed as the Mario or Jack of the combat destroyers, but it remains as a master-of-none.  While better than it used to be in pre-0.7, enough that it can fight somewhat effectively, it is still not as good as its peers.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 16, 2015, 02:44:04 PM
IMO: The Enforcer costs less because it is old. I do not think there is meant to be a direct ratio of credit cost to effectiveness.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 16, 2015, 03:32:10 PM
I consider fire support as long-range assault.  The goal is the same - kill the enemy by any means necessary.

Enforcer is better than Hammerhead at fire support too.  Two HVDs and one Mauler for sniping (and two flak for PD) work very well.  This is one reason why I consider Enforcer one of the best destroyers, no other destroyer can kite-and-snipe like it.  Hammerhead is an inferior Enforcer imitator, and neither Sunder nor Medusa can use long-range weapons that can hit for hard flux.  (Needlers have less range than Maulers and HVDs.)

The only useful thing Hammerhead can do that Enforcer cannot do (better) is combine ballistics with disabling ion cannons.  That is not enough to save the Hammerhead.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Wyvern on December 16, 2015, 03:54:37 PM
The only useful thing Hammerhead can do that Enforcer cannot do (better) is...
Not burn drive into piles of enemies?
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 16, 2015, 06:40:45 PM
Quote
Enforcer is better than Hammerhead at fire support too.  Two HVDs and one Mauler for sniping (and two flak for PD) work very well.  This is one reason why I consider Enforcer one of the best destroyers, no other destroyer can kite-and-snipe like it.  Hammerhead is an inferior Enforcer imitator, and neither Sunder nor Medusa can use long-range weapons that can hit for hard flux.  (Needlers have less range than Maulers and HVDs.)
yeah, enforcer's better, as long as noone's shooting at it.  Hammerhead can keep up its barrage and still have a decent amount of flux available for defense, between its massively better shield and the ammo feeders.

i mean while the feed is going the two mounts on the hammerhead = 4 mounts, and with less flux expenditure. 

the downside of the hammerhead is not firepower, its the forward mount vs turreted~~
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 17, 2015, 05:40:26 AM
That is the point of Maulers and HVDs on Enforcer.  It does not get shot back much because it outranges many enemies, and flak can take out some things that would otherwise hit shields.

Both Hammerhead and Enforcer have bad flux stats unless you pump capacitors.  Enforcer has OP to spare.  Hammerhead does not (without giving up something).
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 17, 2015, 06:22:49 AM
I am on Ironclad mod now, so I can't look up the speeds, but I am pretty sure that the Enforcer is slow compared to Hammerhead, making pulling back for the Enforcer harder. Although I said this mostly from battles and seeing how the enemy AI acts towards me attacking them. The Enforcer has a lot of hull, but it stays alive more, while acts as a target. Hammerheads at times back off and hide behind other ships though.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: icepick37 on December 17, 2015, 07:52:04 AM
I would love to see more drone tenders.

What are the current ones?

shepherd, tempest (sorta), aemini, and astral right?

Oh heron and prometheus? Huh. I do like the Heron. A lot. Need to play with gemini more.

What I REALLY want is basically a warfighting upsized shepherd. Maybe I just need to get modding.  :p  What I mean though, is a ship whose main weapon is really the drones, and it's own weapons are either vestigial or supportive in nature. Only the shepherd is like that. It is fun to play mass shepherd, though, heh.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Techhead on December 17, 2015, 10:15:49 AM
An upsized Shepard? The Gemini is pretty dang close. Drones, cargo space, omni shield, ballistic turret(s), and you probably had a missile in that universal slot. Just add a flight deck for more of that power-projection.

Myself? I'd like to see a Shepard Mk.II that has its weapon systems stripped, the cargo bay gutted, and the drone bay converted into a flight deck. Basically the cheapest piece-of-junk carrier option ever made.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: ChaseBears on December 17, 2015, 10:39:49 AM
Quote
That is the point of Maulers and HVDs on Enforcer.  It does not get shot back much because it outranges many enemies, and flak can take out some things that would otherwise hit shields.
They both outrange everything; that's the whole point. Though if you are looking at range advantage, the hammerhead will always come out on top between its forward mountings and superior engines
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Megas on December 17, 2015, 10:50:31 AM
I tried both Enforcer and Hammerhead snipers.  Hammerhead is not as good as Enforcer at that role because 1) Hammerhead mediums are hardpoints, making aiming harder, 2) worse PD... and worse firepower without Tactical Lasers, 3) not enough OP to get everything it needs to shine at sniping (at least if you want Tactical Lasers).
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: icepick37 on December 17, 2015, 11:05:01 AM
An upsized Shepard? The Gemini is pretty dang close. Drones, cargo space, omni shield, ballistic turret(s), and you probably had a missile in that universal slot. Just add a flight deck for more of that power-projection.

Myself? I'd like to see a Shepard Mk.II that has its weapon systems stripped, the cargo bay gutted, and the drone bay converted into a flight deck. Basically the cheapest piece-of-junk carrier option ever made.
Eh, the gemini's drones feel more supportive to me. They are pd drones. I guess the borer drones are as well, so maybe I'm nitpicking.  :p  They are very similar, though, I'll give you that.

I do like the pocket carrier idea. It would be nice to be able to support fighters earlier somehow. Back when there was just hangar space I used to rock a hound/talon combo. I guess you still can do it exactly the same way. Maybe I should play with that more.

Maybe there could be a pocket carrier that didn't do full refit in battle like the real carriers, but instead offered some kind of bonus to fighter wings? Like a repair gantry but just for fighters? That might be interesting.

worse firepower without Tactical Lasers
Tac lasers are the solution to all problems. I used to love hammerhead with ir pulses up front, too. I think now that I can do he guns, though that has been subsumed. I think I am one of the few that values the hammerheads speed and manueveravility. Yes you have burn drive on the enforcer, but it's not quite the same.

I do think the enforcer beats the hammerhead in terms of face wreckage, though, in basically every case.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 17, 2015, 11:13:43 AM
I personally do not care who wins when one on one. It is easily the Enforcer since the Hammerhead would get eventually tired of going back and forth. Even if the hammerhead would manage to win, it still does not matter. The question is which can survive more than the other in a larger battle. I just can;t imagine the Enforcer being my support since it would not be able to pull back and move behind me to replenish flux, although I can imagine using the enforcer as a shield for sure. Of course depending how one plays, one or the other must be useless. I know that since I love Sunder, I always look for a XIV model. This is why I said it is fine if the hammerhead remains as a crappy craft and then a MKII appears.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: icepick37 on December 18, 2015, 06:11:58 AM

Eh, the gemini's drones feel more supportive to me.


I figured out what the difference that makes it for me is. Shepherds and tempests can regenerate their drones. Gemini doesn't. So it doesn't take long to deplete your drones and be out one of your useful tools.

I think I figured out what I really want, though. Fighters...  :p  Just taking fighters with a real carrier. I just hate how much it costs in terms in supplies. Talons are pretty cheap, though.

Back when there was just hangar space I used to rock a hound/talon combo. I guess you still can do it exactly the same way. Maybe I should play with that more.

No. No you cannot. I had forgotten that you have to refit fighters at stations without a carrier. No wonder I don't use them anymore.  :p
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Cik on December 18, 2015, 06:14:11 AM
i used to field talons to some effect in .5x

now though

heh
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Weltall on December 18, 2015, 06:23:30 AM
i used to field talons to some effect in .5x

now though

heh

They are great for wasting crew and creating orphans on your side as much as the enemy's side.
Title: Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
Post by: Cik on December 18, 2015, 06:24:36 AM
well it does say average lifespan of talon pilots in battlespace is 2 minutes 40 seconds

which was about right way back..

now it's about 20 seconds (and maybe 18 of those are travelling to the field) :^)

still though, i miss using low-tier fighters. now i can barely make a competent escort force out of xyphos.

there was a time when broadswords, gladius (even talons, in numbers) were something to be feared.