Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Locklave on August 30, 2019, 08:59:41 AM

Title: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on August 30, 2019, 08:59:41 AM
Why would I use this ship? I don't understand when it would fill a needed role or function. It's the only ship I'd never buy.

Am I missing this function or something that justifies it's use? Specifics please.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: pedro1_1 on August 30, 2019, 09:12:40 AM
Why would I use this ship? I don't understand when it would fill a needed role or function. It's the only ship I'd never buy.

Am I missing this function or something that justifies it's use? Specifics please.

It's a brick which can send up to 12 Salamanders in one ship, or It can send a funnel of harpons to kill an overloaded ship, or you can use It as a brick to tank for your carriers and frigates, or you can bring It to an exploration mission since It's one of the three ships wich have Surveing Operations, or you can use It to store stuff while being strong enough to block frigates from killing your cargo ships
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Igncom1 on August 30, 2019, 09:13:54 AM
It's a bigger Shepard frigate with the heaviest armour in a civilian ship with fast missile racks. Their purpose is an anchor, they take the hits that your more important stuff cannot while also having build in functionality for out of combat purposes.

Salvage and explore with them, use them to protect your stuff from the minor threats on the rim, never ever try to use them as a proper combat cruiser.

They serve as the best non-military cruiser available which while in the current game isn't much of a niche due to how you can buy battleships off of the civilian market, it used to be one of the best commonly available cruiser sized vessels. Or well.... the only available one outside of the black-market.

Are they good? No. Are they relatively cheap and common? Yes. They don't serve very well in AI hands, but if you want to spam medium missiles then they can server you well as a player controlled brick. Few things in space are capable of surviving rapid fire torpedoes after all.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Vayra on August 30, 2019, 11:40:55 AM
Good tank. Good cargo capacity. Good surveying equipment.

Venture is a good girl.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Pappus on August 30, 2019, 12:33:55 PM
Highest reaper throughput in vanilla.

8 at a rapid pace, including the CLICK reload sound to let your enemy know you mean business.

Here the variant - no ready for AI yet due to it being bugged with the missile and fast missile racks.

vs Onslaught:
https://youtu.be/-_NKKOQvCq8

Bigger battle:
https://youtu.be/nr7MSOv1gvo
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Goumindong on August 30, 2019, 12:42:49 PM
Good tank. Good cargo capacity. Good surveying equipment.

Venture is a good girl.

Best survey equipment in the base game!

Low deployment point cost! Second lowest DP for a cruiser in the game (but the colosus mk 2/3 barely count).

Capital quality armor and hull tank!
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on August 30, 2019, 01:20:16 PM
It's a bigger Shepard frigate with the heaviest armour in a civilian ship with fast missile racks. Their purpose is an anchor, they take the hits that your more important stuff cannot while also having build in functionality for out of combat purposes.

Salvage and explore with them, use them to protect your stuff from the minor threats on the rim, never ever try to use them as a proper combat cruiser.

They serve as the best non-military cruiser available which while in the current game isn't much of a niche due to how you can buy battleships off of the civilian market, it used to be one of the best commonly available cruiser sized vessels. Or well.... the only available one outside of the black-market.

Are they good? No. Are they relatively cheap and common? Yes. They don't serve very well in AI hands, but if you want to spam medium missiles then they can server you well as a player controlled brick. Few things in space are capable of surviving rapid fire torpedoes after all.

Good tank. Good cargo capacity. Good surveying equipment.

Venture is a good girl.

Good tank. Good cargo capacity. Good surveying equipment.

Venture is a good girl.

Best survey equipment in the base game!

Low deployment point cost! Second lowest DP for a cruiser in the game (but the colosus mk 2/3 barely count).

Capital quality armor and hull tank!

Apogee is better.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on August 30, 2019, 01:24:30 PM
Venture is kinda a niche, as shown.

You need the proper loadout for it, and its basically a escort cruiser. I personally go apogee if I can find one or start with one (since its harder to find than a Venture) but if I can't find anything, the Venture is good in a pinch when exploring.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: xenoargh on August 30, 2019, 01:25:24 PM
Apogee is still better in most ways that matter. 

The Venture's current Armor ratings and relatively-poor shield ratings mean that, combined with its lackluster weapons (once it's fired the missiles, it's done as a serious combatant) it's not a very good ship past early-game.

Yes, it can sometimes beat an Onslaught in the sim.  So can a Tempest.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on August 30, 2019, 01:29:12 PM
It would be a viable early to mid game missile cruiser if the ship system was changed from fast missile racks to the missile reload one that the Onslaughts weaker brother gets.

That way it would still suck late game, but it would be viable as a good missile cruiser that just doesn't die unless the enemy commits. Right now, though, it runs out of missiles fast so your stuck doing nothing after that.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on August 30, 2019, 01:31:35 PM
I feel sorry for the onslaught. Every now and then I go sim an wolf killing an Onslaught just to make sure my reflexes aren't getting too slow. It's a perennial favourite choice of ship to destroy in sim videos. There's a video of a Buffalo mk II beating an onslaught out there somewhere I am sure.

Also it doesn't take an expert to take work out that the player must have loads of combat skills in that vid.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Pappus on August 30, 2019, 01:36:45 PM
The moment I hear apogee is better in anything I know lots of alcohol must be involved.

Yeah lets play the cruiser that is basically a slow plasma cannon, because the plasma cannon is so so great to begin with on a slow ship no less. The sunder already has more firepower than the apo. Large + double small front is simply not useable in any realistic sense. For memes - sure.

Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Grievous69 on August 30, 2019, 01:39:11 PM
I feel sorry for the onslaught. Every now and then I go sim an wolf killing an Onslaught just to make sure my reflexes aren't getting too slow. It's a perennial favourite choice of ship to destroy in sim videos. There's a video of a Buffalo mk II beating an onslaught out there somewhere I am sure.

Yeah I really don't get why people post those. ''Hey look this build/ship works because it can kill the slowest and most vulnerable ship in the game that's all by itself. Like almost anything with a shield and a few weapons that isn't slow as the Onslaught can kill it alone. Guess it's just nice watching the big boy explode over and over.

EDIT:
The moment I hear apogee is better in anything I know lots of alcohol must be involved.

Yeah lets play the cruiser that is basically a slow plasma cannon, because the plasma cannon is so so great to begin with on a slow ship no less. The sunder already has more firepower than the apo. Large + double small front is simply not useable in any realistic sense. For memes - sure.



Because it's the tankiest cruiser in the game with a large missile mount also? And really cheap to deploy? First time seeing someone saying it's just for memes... As for the Venture, to me it's just an annoying ship in early game when you don't have much firepower and need to waste time killing those bricks. Never even considered putting one in my fleet in all of my time playing Starsector. Guess I could try it out just for the lulz.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on August 30, 2019, 01:47:29 PM
The moment I hear apogee is better in anything I know lots of alcohol must be involved.

Yeah lets play the cruiser that is basically a slow plasma cannon, because the plasma cannon is so so great to begin with on a slow ship no less. The sunder already has more firepower than the apo. Large + double small front is simply not useable in any realistic sense. For memes - sure.

Good shield. Good cargo capacity. Good surveying equipment.

Apogee is a good girl!


Best survey equipment in the base game!

Low deployment point cost! Third lowest DP for a cruiser in the game (but the colosus mk 2/3 barely count).

Capital quality shield and fuel tank!

You can happily deploy a fleet full of Apogees. Deploying a fleet of Ventures seem to be a good ticket to ending up with a lot of d-mod Ventures.



To be fair to the Venture, it does have amazing amount of armour and hullpoints for its Deployment Points. Which does make it quite difficult to find the right DP for it, especially since it is supposed to provide a logistical role. It fulfils a game role, the same way that all those d-mod pirate bounty fulfill a game role.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on August 30, 2019, 01:48:54 PM
Plasma cannon is nice, but if I had to choose between plasma cannon or locusts for Apogee, I would use Locusts with Expanded Missile Racks and Mining Blaster over Plasma Cannon.  (I do not need to aim for Locusts, and blaster will be anti-armor against pirate orbital station.)  That said, I would dump missile racks for both plasma cannon and locusts.

What makes Apogee good beyond heavy weapons is its overall package at a bargain DP price.  It is cheap (only 18 DP), has tough shields, and has good campaign stats.  It is not a combat monster, but it is a good fighter for its cost, and has unusually high campaign stats for a combat ship.  Plus, it gets surveying for free.  It usefulness wanes late in the game, but it is still a good ship anytime in the fleet until after you survey every last planet in the sector.  It can fight, it can tank, it can haul, it has surveying, and it is cheap for a cruiser.  At its best, Apogee should be worth about 20 or 22 DP.

As for Venture, if I am desperate for a meat shield very early in the game, I could find and bring one.  However, I always start with Apogee (except for one game when I picked Hammerhead instead) and skip the point in the game where I might need a Venture.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on August 30, 2019, 01:51:55 PM

Apogee is better.

That's what I mean.  Apogee also fights better/free scanning upgrade and is naturally tanky via shields. Far better in a real fight.

I also agree the beating the dumb AI Onslaught is not something that wins me over. Onslaughts get wrecked by everything that can flank and those ships aren't 1 trick ponies as they can do that to normal ships too.

Cargo space is not impressive either.

It seems like the kind of ship I should like, as I love workhorse type ships. Mule springs to mind. But it feels like it lacks general functionality.
- Cargo space is okay
- Survey systems are nice
- okay missile systems I guess?

You can't stick a fighter bay on it for decent fighters or even upgrade the mining drones. It's damn speed of 7 kills me, feels like a forced upgrade. 14 max burn is unacceptable. Please don't say Tugs, as no one using a Venture is gonna be using tugs lol.

edit:
I want to like this ship damnit...
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on August 30, 2019, 01:55:21 PM
Please don't say Tugs, as no one using a Venture is gonna be using tugs lol.
Not that early in the game when one may consider using Venture.  The fuel use is too much very early in the game.  Tugs are for later in the game when player has money to burn for as much fuel as he wants.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Grievous69 on August 30, 2019, 01:58:30 PM
It's damn speed of 7 kills me, feels like a forced upgrade.

Petition to change the name from Venture-class to Camping-class.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: TaLaR on August 30, 2019, 02:02:15 PM
Apogee is easy to kite to death. But AI is bad at kiting, unless range+speed advantage is beyond ridiculous (which it usually isn't). Which makes Apogees much safer than they should be against competent opponents.

Venture is even slower and practically unarmed. Any DE defeats it reliably under AI control (well except maybe Shrike, I keep forgetting it counts as DE...). It's just question of time.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on August 30, 2019, 02:06:54 PM
AI kites just fine in solo fights, which early game fights may devolve into.  (My smaller ships run out of PPT, leaving me with my Apogee against one or two small enemy ships that keep backpedaling but will not give up the fight.)  I had to corner some enemy ships before my Apogee could kill them to end the fight.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: TaLaR on August 30, 2019, 02:10:30 PM
AI kites just fine in solo fights, which early game fights may devolve into.  (My smaller ships run out of PPT, leaving me with my Apogee against one or two small enemy ships that keep backpedaling but will not give up the fight.)  I had to corner some enemy ships before my Apogee could kill them to end the fight.

AI 'kiting' is mostly about wasting time. Player kiting is about killing stuff without giving it chance to fight back or back off. Which is why I say AI mostly can't kite - it's way too inefficient with it's back and forth dance instead of just keeping steady optimal distance as player would.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on August 30, 2019, 02:12:09 PM
No argument there.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on August 30, 2019, 02:15:09 PM
I never really thought about it, but there really is a lack of non combat ship upgrades that support the fleet. Survey/Scanner/Scrap/Cargo/Fuel. I was thinking about what you could add to it to make it more useful, something that would be a "oh hey, that's useful even if it's bad at fighting" kind of thing. I've never kept one in my fleet in any game since my first game where I was all "omg that's a big ship I bet it kicks ass!".
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on August 30, 2019, 02:26:16 PM
I was about to write a post that you might want to buy a Venture if you wanted the capabilty of surveying and fighting and didn't have an Apogee available. And then I remembered that Surveying Equipment is a hullmod that you can just put onto all your logistical ships.

@Locklave. You like the Mule. Really? Why? It's basically like the Venture. You only use it because you happened to pick it up for "free". I regard them as nearly identical in role and style. What is it about the Mule? More cargo space? Shielded Cargo Hull? Faster? Does that reach the tipping point in usefulness?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on August 30, 2019, 03:03:06 PM
I was about to write a post that you might want to buy a Venture if you wanted the capabilty of surveying and fighting and didn't have an Apogee available. And then I remembered that Surveying Equipment is a hullmod that you can just put onto all your logistical ships.

@Locklave. You like the Mule. Really? Why? It's basically like the Venture. You only use it because you happened to pick it up for "free". I regard them as nearly identical in role and style. What is it about the Mule? More cargo space? Shielded Cargo Hull? Faster? Does that reach the tipping point in usefulness?

Shield Cargo/Faster (burn and in combat)/250 cargo/cheap to maintain/reliable in a fight (AI controlled)/9 burn base/common and easy to replace/Plenty of OP for mods/Non civilian hull (no extra cost for certain mods).

It's not even when it passes the tipping point, it's that there is no question that it does pass it. Taking one even with 5 D mods can be a solid addition (assuming it's not something that directly undermines it's function). Honestly the bar is also lower for stuff smaller then a cruiser, you expect a cruiser to do more. Hound and Cerberus meet and pass the bar just because they are dirt cheap and have okay cargo space, they even make great cannon fodder in a serious fight because they are so replaceable.

I'd love for Venture to have some charming feature that makes it worth the Supplies/Fuel.

Hegemony Buffalo is a good example of that sweet spot for a totally non combat ship. The military hull mod frees up mod points and a dock mod slot for free. You could toss in lower upkeep and more cargo space or maybe a scanners. It just feels good to have extra options without requirements. Even though it can't fight it's worth the fleet space early-mid game. If a ship can't fight decently (like the Mule) it should be damn good at what it does.

Combat freighters all pretty much hit that sweet spot because they do a job for the fleet and can help out without being useless if things get bad. I was honestly hoping the Venture was a jewel in the rough and I just couldn't see it.

edit:

I Buy Mules, not just find them. 50k about, not a major investment. I usually have 5-6 Mules up until I have my own planet. Can't afford too many non combat ship spaces and cargo is a must have. Shielded to avoid annoying stuff like a patrol taking your AI cores/drugs w/e scav you found that is not allowed on your latest trip. Less stuff to worry about, fly right into the port without concern.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: intrinsic_parity on August 30, 2019, 04:31:57 PM
I'm pretty sure there's something broken with patrols scanning you. Nothing ever comes of it. I fly into ports with AI cores and no shielded cargo, I trade on the black market with transponder on. Nothing ever happens to me, they just scan and find nothing and let me go. I don't consider shielded hull mods to be relevant in any way.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on August 30, 2019, 05:02:40 PM
I've had gamma cores taken, I've had drugs taken. They work.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Serenitis on August 30, 2019, 05:20:09 PM
Venture is okay. Not great, but okay.
Decent cargo space. Free survey gear. Can carry a pile of missiles. Can defend itself. Can tank quite well. Won't slow down trash fleets.
Something that you don't mind finding and tidying up in the right circumstances, but not usually something you'd go out of your way to buy.

I used them a lot more when you could put any fighter in thier bay, but since they got locked to mining drones I'd rather use Mules.
That loss of flexibilty is the only reason I tend to avoid them.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Tackywheat1 on August 30, 2019, 05:22:50 PM
I'm pretty sure there's something broken with patrols scanning you. Nothing ever comes of it. I fly into ports with AI cores and no shielded cargo, I trade on the black market with transponder on. Nothing ever happens to me, they just scan and find nothing and let me go. I don't consider shielded hull mods to be relevant in any way.
This is probably because you have good relations with the faction
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: sotanaht on August 30, 2019, 07:26:57 PM
I'm pretty sure there's something broken with patrols scanning you. Nothing ever comes of it. I fly into ports with AI cores and no shielded cargo, I trade on the black market with transponder on. Nothing ever happens to me, they just scan and find nothing and let me go. I don't consider shielded hull mods to be relevant in any way.
This is probably because you have good relations with the faction
I've had them try to confiscate my AI cores (which I always carry because reasons) exactly once since I've been playing on this patch, and I do NOT always have good relations.  Most of the time maybe, but I think the behavior might be a little broken in your favor right now.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Igncom1 on August 31, 2019, 02:06:41 AM
To be fair the Apogee doesn't have salvaging, but you can just as easily just get some shepherds for that anyway. Assuming you find a decent energy weapon for her to use, otherwise you aren't as better equipped then the venture anyway.

Is the Apogee a civilian ship? I don't recall it having the civilian hull mod?

I'd love to see a buffed up venture, possibly with more built in minding drone wings to make it a drone carrier! If I could mod I'd love to make a civilian-war fleet with overhauled designs like the TEC from sins of a solar empire, or the mon calamari from starwars.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: goduranus on August 31, 2019, 02:23:28 AM
Maybe some ships are just suppose to suck. The Pirate Wolf is downright inferior, but you can find it almost everywhere. Yeah it only takes 5 minutes of looking around to find a proper Wolf, but it takes less than one minute to find a pirate one.

Same for the Venture, it takes about 60 minutes to find a decent Apogee, but 10 minutes to find a decent Venture, so if you aren’t too picky you can make do with Venture, and I think that’s what Venture is for.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Tackywheat1 on August 31, 2019, 10:27:29 AM
To be fair the Apogee doesn't have salvaging, but you can just as easily just get some shepherds for that anyway. Assuming you find a decent energy weapon for her to use, otherwise you aren't as better equipped then the venture anyway.

Is the Apogee a civilian ship? I don't recall it having the civilian hull mod?

I'd love to see a buffed up venture, possibly with more built in minding drone wings to make it a drone carrier! If I could mod I'd love to make a civilian-war fleet with overhauled designs like the TEC from sins of a solar empire, or the mon calamari from starwars.
Apogee is not a civilian ship
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Eji1700 on August 31, 2019, 10:49:51 AM
It's a pretty good ship for a non military.  Ship prices/availability really could use a tweak, but the venture is fine.

The "stock" loadout when you test a build is what I usually practice against for larger ships because it shows off how annoying it can be.  It's got great anti missile/fighter options, and seriously dangerous missile pressure.  It's not really meant to flux someone out (outside of sabots) but instead to sit there and hold the line while other ships do that.  Once they're fluxed, double harpoon pods can kill most non cap hulls.

Is it designed to be in your end game fleet without some serious love?  No, but at any point before money becomes a free resources it's great.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Igncom1 on August 31, 2019, 11:11:19 AM
To be fair the Apogee doesn't have salvaging, but you can just as easily just get some shepherds for that anyway. Assuming you find a decent energy weapon for her to use, otherwise you aren't as better equipped then the venture anyway.

Is the Apogee a civilian ship? I don't recall it having the civilian hull mod?

I'd love to see a buffed up venture, possibly with more built in minding drone wings to make it a drone carrier! If I could mod I'd love to make a civilian-war fleet with overhauled designs like the TEC from sins of a solar empire, or the mon calamari from starwars.
Apogee is not a civilian ship

Then why are we comparing a military ship to a civilian ship? I know they are both exploration craft, but that seems a little stacked.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Tackywheat1 on August 31, 2019, 11:12:35 AM
Because they fulfill similar roles (except Apogee is much better)
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Igncom1 on August 31, 2019, 11:13:41 AM
I'd be surprised if a military ship was worse then a civilian ship at fighting, within the same weight class that is.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on August 31, 2019, 11:15:17 AM
Maybe some ships are just suppose to suck. The Pirate Wolf is downright inferior, but you can find it almost everywhere. Yeah it only takes 5 minutes of looking around to find a proper Wolf, but it takes less than one minute to find a pirate one.

Same for the Venture, it takes about 60 minutes to find a decent Apogee, but 10 minutes to find a decent Venture, so if you aren’t too picky you can make do with Venture, and I think that’s what Venture is for.

But Venture isn't like a weaker Apogee. A Pirate Wolf is worse then a normal wolf but it's still a good ship, but Venture is junky.

Maybe it just exists to be space garbage?

edit:

Just because it has survey equipment doesn't mean it fills the same role. Apogee is nothing like the Venture aside from that. Venture is like a Big drone tender minus the better scav bonus and speed, not very much like the drone tender even...
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Sarissofoi on August 31, 2019, 02:18:27 PM
Venture would be great for exploration and salvaging fleets if it have a Salvaging Gantry. I wonder why it don't have it in first place?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Goumindong on August 31, 2019, 03:14:20 PM
Maybe some ships are just suppose to suck. The Pirate Wolf is downright inferior, but you can find it almost everywhere. Yeah it only takes 5 minutes of looking around to find a proper Wolf, but it takes less than one minute to find a pirate one.

Same for the Venture, it takes about 60 minutes to find a decent Apogee, but 10 minutes to find a decent Venture, so if you aren’t too picky you can make do with Venture, and I think that’s what Venture is for.

But Venture isn't like a weaker Apogee. A Pirate Wolf is worse then a normal wolf but it's still a good ship, but Venture is junky.

Maybe it just exists to be space garbage?

But a venture is not junky. It is indeed a very good anvil that you can entirely not care if it dies. Not only is it a good anvil but its weapon systems are strong and uncommon for anvils. Most anvils do not have multiple medium launcher slots. Certainly not at 15 DP. The Dominator does, but it costs 25.

Adjusted base Flux Dissipation(Base dissipation - shield upkeep cost): Common Cruisers. - OP efficiency (OP divided by DP rounded to nearest tenth) - adjusted base flux divided by DP

Venture: 180 - 7.3 - 12
Falcon: 210 - 8.3 - 14
Eagle: 315 - 7.0 - 14.31
Apogee: 280-7.8 - 15.55
Dominator: 225 - 7.6 - 9

As we can see the Venture is not great. But its also not *** either. Its just barely below the Falcon and Eagle in efficiency and around the same space as the dominator.  Its not so far off the Apogee that the Apogee becomes clearly a superior option. If you have stabilized shields and hardened shields the Apogee probably does but that is a LOT of OP you're eating into tank. You won't have much left to fits its slots. The Dominator has even less flux per DP than the Venture and fewer medium missile slots and roughly the same OP per DP.

The only thing you really need a venture to do is to sit in one spot, not die, and have harpoons fit so that you can punish things when they flux out. Its really good at all of that! Its got the best quantity of missile slots per deployment point for any of the front line cruisers.

Sure you will probably drop it by the time you can field a "proper" tank and a gryphon behind it and you're all skilled up with specialist captains. But the Venture is not bad in the slightest
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on August 31, 2019, 03:46:20 PM
There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

Anyways, we are comparing Apogee with Venture becuase the question was why would you consider buying a Venture, not why the Venture exists. They are both the same burn speed (after militarised ship system) and in the same hull type. Apogee does exactly the same thing as Venture as a combat ship but is better logistically and combat-wise.

The advantages of the Venture usually has nothing to do with buying it, but rather that is is usually "free" to find as pirate salvage and is rather common to find, as opposed to the Apogee which seems rather rare. And that's fine as a role of the ship in the game.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Tackywheat1 on August 31, 2019, 04:25:54 PM
Apogee is NOT a civilian ship
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on August 31, 2019, 06:08:58 PM
All I can tell from this thread is that the Venture isn't worth the deployment cost and is a sub par fodder.

Even if you could get it for free it isn't able to pull it's weight in combat after a few volleys of missiles at which point it's waiting to die. I would never keep something as costly as a cruiser to use as fodder. Hound/Cerberus these are good fodder you can afford to lose. Treating a cruiser like this is insane.

Apogee is not "exactly the same thing as the Venture as a combat ship but is better logistically and combat wise." You could say that about Onslaught vs Atlas Mk II. It's a terrible comparison.

Drone tender is the closest thing to Venture in what it does and how it performs in combat. Rarely kills anything and takes up the enemies time, the only difference seems to be that the Drone tender has more survival because it can avoid stuff.

Why the Venture exists is a very good question at this point. It should be justified in Lore or mechanics in some way. Why would anyone build it over other ships?

edit:

If it could replace a Salvage ship and had improved Scanners for free it might be worth the cost. But that's not gonna happen.

edit 2:

Point of thought, the Drone tender isn't something you'd question taking for free if you had space. It also isn't something you'd question why it was built in the first place, if the game was way smaller scale players would buy them more commonly. I can imagine starting off npc scavs would love them.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on August 31, 2019, 07:56:32 PM
The Venture is actually a civillian ship. You need to waste DP on Militarized Subsystems or else you get ganked by pirate patrols due to 7 burn (without Military systems) and high sensor profile.

Plus without it you get huge costs due to it being a civillian hull.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Serenitis on September 01, 2019, 01:59:52 AM
Why the Venture exists is a very good question at this point. It should be justified in Lore or mechanics in some way.
It is. It exists as a fallback option for any faction without access to heavy industry, so they have at least one ship capable of being an anchor in thier fleets.
Venture is supposed to be the poverty option for cruisers, in the same way Buffalo II is for destroyers, and Condor is for carriers. And the same way that all of them are fodder for the player to beat on in the early game.

As to why you'd want to build it over other ships, you probably wouldn't unless it was the only thing of it's size you had access to. Eg; running a heavy industry without any extra blueprints, something that happens only if you build a colony right at the start of the game, and do zero exploring.

The Venture is actually a civillian ship. You need to waste DP on Militarized Subsystems or else you get ganked by pirate patrols due to 7 burn (without Military systems) and high sensor profile.

Plus without it you get huge costs due to it being a civillian hull.
You can run from almost anything with burn 7 ships. I regularly build fleets around Colossi because they're the biggest thing capable of burn 7 without having to spend dock slots (which I want for other things), and have had no issues running when needed.
Burn 7 is not an issue for the Venture, unless you're obsessing about the highest possible speeds. In which case most cruisers will not be suitable for you either. This is quite an unfair standard to hold against one ship.

CivGrade doesn't increase costs in any way. Unless you're counting the increase from the military conversion, which again is unfair as it's not a requirement.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: DatonKallandor on September 01, 2019, 04:18:58 AM
Venture used to be amazing, but the change to built-in mining drone wings without any compensation just crippled it. Add to that a maintenance cost that is quite frankly too high compared to what else you can get for the same price, it's just not worth it.

If the hangar were universal instead of built-in, and if the civilian-militarizied skill in the upcoming rework is big enough, Ventures might get good again, but as long as it's limited to crappy drones at 15 maintenance it ain't gonna happen.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Tackywheat1 on September 01, 2019, 05:21:11 AM
Why the Venture exists is a very good question at this point. It should be justified in Lore or mechanics in some way.
It is. It exists as a fallback option for any faction without access to heavy industry, so they have at least one ship capable of being an anchor in thier fleets.
Venture is supposed to be the poverty option for cruisers, in the same way Buffalo II is for destroyers, and Condor is for carriers. And the same way that all of them are fodder for the player to beat on in the early game.

As to why you'd want to build it over other ships, you probably wouldn't unless it was the only thing of it's size you had access to. Eg; running a heavy industry without any extra blueprints, something that happens only if you build a colony right at the start of the game, and do zero exploring.

The Venture is actually a civillian ship. You need to waste DP on Militarized Subsystems or else you get ganked by pirate patrols due to 7 burn (without Military systems) and high sensor profile.

Plus without it you get huge costs due to it being a civillian hull.
You can run from almost anything with burn 7 ships. I regularly build fleets around Colossi because they're the biggest thing capable of burn 7 without having to spend dock slots (which I want for other things), and have had no issues running when needed.
Burn 7 is not an issue for the Venture, unless you're obsessing about the highest possible speeds. In which case most cruisers will not be suitable for you either. This is quite an unfair standard to hold against one ship.

CivGrade doesn't increase costs in any way. Unless you're counting the increase from the military conversion, which again is unfair as it's not a requirement.

Most cruisers have burn 8....
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 01, 2019, 07:42:42 AM
You can run from almost anything with burn 7 ships. I regularly build fleets around Colossi because they're the biggest thing capable of burn 7 without having to spend dock slots (which I want for other things), and have had no issues running when needed.
Burn 7 is not an issue for the Venture, unless you're obsessing about the highest possible speeds. In which case most cruisers will not be suitable for you either. This is quite an unfair standard to hold against one ship.

CivGrade doesn't increase costs in any way. Unless you're counting the increase from the military conversion, which again is unfair as it's not a requirement.

Their are several major logistical issues with low burn speeds that shouldn't be glossed over as "obsessed with speed".

- Your escape window if a fleet got close via asteroids/debris field/nebula/magnetic field/ect is tiny and nearly every pirate fleet has an equal or higher base burn. This forces more use of emergency burns to escape, wasting more fuel and supplies from CR loss.

- Low burn speed also wastes tons of supplies by costing you days of travel time.

- You can't catch pirates or bounties easily or at all, costing you more supplies, forcing more emergency burns, costing more supplies from CR loss, costing more fuel.

- Missions have timers and you might not be able to get that extra mission done if given the chance, costing you cash.

- Everything takes longer to do, so in addition to not being able to do extra mission in an area because of time restraints you are also spending more time getting every mission done. Costing you cash/supplies.

- Crew costs cash every month, you get less done in the same time frame inflating your costs. 14 burn vs 20 burn is 30% more crew costs to get the same thing done, works the same for supplies.

Everything about 7 burn base is logistically terrible, 8 is acceptable with the +1 burn skill. 9 total burn, meaning 18 travel speed.

12 max speed is... who would even play like this?
14 max speed is terrible
16 max speed is is bad but tolerable
18 max speed is decent
20 max speed is optimal

Venture needs at minimum militarization for 8, plus the skill to be decent (I assume everyone gets the +1 burn speed skill, it's the best QoL skill in the game). I put up with 8 burn only until a get cash or skills to fix it.

It's not about being obsessed with speed, it's not wanting to throw away time/fuel/supplies and cash while pretending nothing is being lost. No mod you can add to your ships is gonna make up for the loss in cash.

Less speed = greater costs/risk & less profit

edit:

"you can run from almost anything with burn 7 ship." And those not included in the "almost anything" cost you at least half your fleet if you are lucky.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 01, 2019, 08:42:33 AM
Quote
12 max speed is... who would even play like this?
14 max speed is terrible
16 max speed is is bad but tolerable
18 max speed is decent
20 max speed is optimal
This is why I put Augmented Engines at everything with burn less than 8, even if it hurts battleships.  Well, I could bring more tugs, but that hurts more, especially without Navigation.  (Six tugs for burn 7 ships and no Navigation is too much fuel and fleet slots consumed.)  Even burn 9 ships (or burn 8 ship with Navigation 3) need two tugs to reach 20.  Before I get capitals and tugs, I have put Augmented Engines on even burn 8 ships like cruisers.

Most importantly, less than 20 burn means more time spent babysitting worlds (mine or core), or traveling to babysit, than doing fun stuff.  Even with burn 20, I still spend an unacceptably high amount of time babysitting or traveling to babysit.

Also, if player wants to sneak in a system, he really needs burn 20 to evade patrols.  Patrols seem to have at least burn 18 when they charge at your fleet.

Navigation 3 is the biggest time saver.  It hurts to spend three points to get the extra burn and Transverse Jump, but I finally gave in after so long.  I consider that skill up there with Electronic Warfare 1 and Loadout Design 3 in terms of must-have, even if Navigation has no direct combat use.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 01, 2019, 09:02:31 AM
Quote
12 max speed is... who would even play like this?
14 max speed is terrible
16 max speed is is bad but tolerable
18 max speed is decent
20 max speed is optimal
This is why I put Augmented Engines at everything with burn less than 8, even if it hurts battleships.  Well, I could bring more tugs, but that hurts more, especially without Navigation.  (Six tugs for burn 7 ships and no Navigation is too much fuel and fleet slots consumed.)  Even burn 9 ships (or burn 8 ship with Navigation 3) need two tugs to reach 20.  Before I get capitals and tugs, I have put Augmented Engines on even burn 8 ships like cruisers.

Most importantly, less than 20 burn means more time spent babysitting worlds (mine or core), or traveling to babysit, than doing fun stuff.  Even with burn 20, I still spend an unacceptably high amount of time babysitting or traveling to babysit.

Also, if player wants to sneak in a system, he really needs burn 20 to evade patrols.  Patrols seem to have at least burn 18 when they charge at your fleet.

Navigation 3 is the biggest time saver.  It hurts to spend three points to get the extra burn and Transverse Jump, but I finally gave in after so long.  I consider that skill up there with Electronic Warfare 1 and Loadout Design 3 in terms of must-have, even if Navigation has no direct combat use.

I completely agree with your reasoning and solid examples of where it improves QoL as well as logistics for the player. Burn speed effects how viable a ship is and if you can justify taking it with you.

It also makes me think about the Stealth runs I do in high threat systems and how much of a difference 10 burn vs 7 or even 8. 10 means you can more safely dodge those random patrol movements, grab what you want and burn outta there if you got seen. 7 speed would be death or spending 10 times as long waiting for bigger openings, same with your example of avoiding patrols.

Venture at very least needs Militarization and at best needs Augmented drive, it's required. Honestly you could replace it with a Mule and not deal with all the downsides and combat issues. Slap a Survey system on a faster cruiser (that likely cost equal cash to buy, cheaper to maintain and fights far better...).
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 01, 2019, 10:07:09 AM
I forget to mention that the few times I bring a pure phase fleet to raid blueprints (at Sindria or Culann), I think I put Augmented Engines on Doom just to keep burn 20, and that hurts it combat ability.  Bringing tugs is not an option for a pure phase fleet since the point of a phase fleet as minimum profile, and tugs are as unsubtle as you can get.

Sometimes, tugs are too undesirable as a fix for burn speed.

I wish there was an equivalent of Militarized Subsystems for non-civilian ships, that is simply +1 burn for less OP cost than Augmented Engines.  (+2 is sometimes too much, but I take it because it is the only option.)
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Serenitis on September 01, 2019, 12:58:40 PM
This looks like fun.

Spoiler
Their are several major logistical issues with low burn speeds that shouldn't be glossed over as "obsessed with speed".

- Your escape window if a fleet got close via asteroids/debris field/nebula/magnetic field/ect is tiny and nearly every pirate fleet has an equal or higher base burn. This forces more use of emergency burns to escape, wasting more fuel and supplies from CR loss.
Never seen this myself. I've always been able to scoot away with sustained burn @14 whenever I want. Sure there's times when you didn't see something and end up running into a huge wall of red.
But you did make sure you have a decent combat fleet to go with all those lovely burn 7 Colossi and Ventures. Didn't you?

Quote
- Low burn speed also wastes tons of supplies by costing you days of travel time.
When you're flying through the edges of the sector stripping everything that isn't nailed down and ripping up whatever is, supplies are functionally limitless. And time doesn't really matter.
The only real concerns you have are cargo space, and crew.

Quote
- You can't catch pirates or bounties easily or at all, costing you more supplies, forcing more emergency burns, costing more supplies from CR loss, costing more fuel.
Stop chasing small bounties and pick on someone your own size (or bigger) then.
I've never had a problem catching bounties because they all head right for me.

Quote
- Missions have timers and you might not be able to get that extra mission done if given the chance, costing you cash.
I honestly don't bother with missions past the early game. I've got more interesting things to do.

Quote
- Everything takes longer to do, so in addition to not being able to do extra mission in an area because of time restraints you are also spending more time getting every mission done. Costing you cash/supplies.
Quote
- Crew costs cash every month, you get less done in the same time frame inflating your costs. 14 burn vs 20 burn is 30% more crew costs to get the same thing done, works the same for supplies.
I generally don't care about missions, that's not what I'm going out to the fringe to do so it's not something I consider all that relevant. And neither cash nor supplies are limited resources.
So long as you enjoy what you do, it's never a waste. So time spent doing it is not a concern.
[close]
We could save some effort next time and just say we play in very different ways.

Spoiler
Most importantly, less than 20 burn means more time spent babysitting worlds (mine or core), or traveling to babysit, than doing fun stuff.  Even with burn 20, I still spend an unacceptably high amount of time babysitting or traveling to babysit.
One of the benefits of trawling the sector is that you sweep up all the pirate and pather bases. And when they resapwn they make convenient jumping off points once you turn them in to debris. They also frequently have large bounties on them.
I've played several runs though 0.9 now and have not once seen a core world decivilise.

Quote
Also, if player wants to sneak in a system, he really needs burn 20 to evade patrols.  Patrols seem to have at least burn 18 when they charge at your fleet.
Yeah. Never really cared about doing this. Just about the only sneaking I do is in red beacon systems, and that kind of requires cargo space to take advantage of all the 'free' supplies and fuel floating about in those charming pale blue containers.
[close]

Venture is fine as is. It could do with it's proper fighter bay back, but it's not an 'essential' change.
Don't agree that it needs all the speed frippery, but then again I'm obviously not a majority here.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 01, 2019, 01:06:41 PM
Quote
I've played several runs though 0.9 now and have not once seen a core world decivilise.
In one game, I ignored Pirate bases for at least a year and Asharu decivilized.  Ever since that incident, I have been paranoid over pirate raids against core worlds.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Serenitis on September 01, 2019, 01:21:23 PM
So, instead of killing them all you decended into paranoia?
I bet if you killed them all you'd feel lots better. And the best bit is, they always come back so you can kill them all again.
It's like therapy. Only with more blood and debris. That you also save the sector is just a convenient happenstance.

I wonder how well a fleet of Ventures could smack the Pirate Piñata....
Might have to look at that tomorrow.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 01, 2019, 01:27:53 PM
/snip

I'm talking about actual mechanics.

Seriously, your reply talks past the point of everything.

- Talking about getting ambushed like I'd be fine if I had better ships... L2P Basically? Weak.

- Stop going after small bounties. No, I'll collect that easy cash if it's near me. You can't do it because your fleet is slow.

- You never run out of supplies on the edges of the sector because RNG decided to bless you always. You can and do run out, bad luck happens the systems are RNG and wasting supplies isn't limited to "the edge" you are using them like that the entire game, including early game.

- You don't bother with missions... With such a slow fleet this isn't a shock. Oh and you said you don't do missions but you never have problems catching bounties... On the missions you don't take. Right?

Us playing different is unrelated to the topic and doesn't change how game mechanics work. If you want to play with 14 speed fleets, go for it, more power to you. But don't come on the forums pretending like there is no downside to that choice.

You said "This looks like fun", did you put me in my place yet? I'm not feeling it.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 01, 2019, 01:32:24 PM
So, instead of killing them all you decended into paranoia?
By that, I mean instead of ignoring them and doing things I want to do at my pace (like I did in the game where Asharu decivilized), I spend excessive babysitting time hunting and killing them again and again instead of doing fun things like exploring, just to prevent bad things happening to all worlds - mine or core.

Pirates cannot be killed permanently.  They also respawn very quickly.  There is a reason why they have been called a zombie horde.  All the player can do is play whack-a-mole with Pirates.  I even tried killing all core worlds to stop the babysitting once and for all, but all that did when I succeeded was have constant pirate activity on my colonies.  Kill a pirate base, one of my colonies gets pirate activity back a day later because a quota base respawned immediately.  Better if other factions get the pirate activity, even if I need to put up with expeditions.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 01, 2019, 01:50:50 PM
So, instead of killing them all you decended into paranoia?
By that, I mean instead of ignoring them and doing things I want to do at my pace (like I did in the game where Asharu decivilized), I spend excessive babysitting time hunting and killing them again and again instead of doing fun things like exploring, just to prevent bad things happening to all worlds - mine or core.

Pirates cannot be killed permanently.  They also respawn very quickly.  There is a reason why they have been called a zombie horde.  All the player can do is play whack-a-mole with Pirates.  I even tried killing all core worlds to stop the babysitting once and for all, but all that did when I succeeded was have constant pirate activity on my colonies.  Kill a pirate base, one of my colonies gets pirate activity back a day later because a quota base respawned immediately.  Better if other factions get the pirate activity, even if I need to put up with expeditions.

Pirate cause decivilization like like mad about 15+ year (if not dealt with) in and the more it happens the more the cascade because they lack the number of targets they used to have. I've seen it happen in the last 3 plays I've had. Usually neutral planets are the first to fall.

edit:

Not sure if you've ever climbed the mountain that is making allies of the pirates (I'd highly recommend it) but you really get to see the damage they do unchecked.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 01, 2019, 04:23:15 PM
Quote
12 max speed is... who would even play like this?
14 max speed is terrible
16 max speed is is bad but tolerable
18 max speed is decent
20 max speed is optimal
This is why I put Augmented Engines at everything with burn less than 8, even if it hurts battleships.  Well, I could bring more tugs, but that hurts more, especially without Navigation.  (Six tugs for burn 7 ships and no Navigation is too much fuel and fleet slots consumed.)  Even burn 9 ships (or burn 8 ship with Navigation 3) need two tugs to reach 20.  Before I get capitals and tugs, I have put Augmented Engines on even burn 8 ships like cruisers.

Most importantly, less than 20 burn means more time spent babysitting worlds (mine or core), or traveling to babysit, than doing fun stuff.  Even with burn 20, I still spend an unacceptably high amount of time babysitting or traveling to babysit.

Also, if player wants to sneak in a system, he really needs burn 20 to evade patrols.  Patrols seem to have at least burn 18 when they charge at your fleet.

Navigation 3 is the biggest time saver.  It hurts to spend three points to get the extra burn and Transverse Jump, but I finally gave in after so long.  I consider that skill up there with Electronic Warfare 1 and Loadout Design 3 in terms of must-have, even if Navigation has no direct combat use.

Tugs aren't that bad. They use up 5 Fuel per light year. So 3 of them is an Onslaught. If you are weakening enough capitals and cruisers that is an equivalent to the power of an Onslaught, you might as well get 3 Ox tugs instead, and when fighting, you will be less likely to lose any one ship. Or make that 2 Ox tugs for the power of a Paragon. i don't see the point of weakening your fleet so much when getting Ox tugs would simply make your fleet better.


Anyways, depending on the stage of the game, I try to have at least enough burn speed to outrun small frigate pirate/pather fleets, till I have a powerful enough fleet, then I care to have at least enough burn speed to outrun destroyer based pirate fleets and faction patrol till i have a powerful enough fleet, andso and so forth till enough burn speed to outrun expedition fleets. Then I give up and just try to have burn 20 to explore the universe without wasting time as much as possible.

Anyways, I have no problem with the existance of the Venture. The Venture exists for the same reason things like mudskipper II and Collossus III exists. So that pirates can throw them at you and you can collect bounty on them easier. They are weak for their hullsize, so the bounty amount is relatively inflated. But to be honest 15 DP not too high for what they can do.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 01, 2019, 04:32:46 PM
@ Plantissue:  Early in the game, tugs' fuel use is a big deal since player use smaller ships.  Late game is less of a problem, although eating fleet slots can be annoying if player still recovers enemy ships, or player wants to bring more combat ships instead.

Two is not too bad.  Four is kind of onerous.  Six is too much to dedicate for tugs.

Quote
i don't see the point of weakening your fleet so much when getting Ox tugs would simply make your fleet better.
More tugs instead of more backup combat ships I can swap into?  I rather have more combat ships if I can support them, especially if I plan to chain battle.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 01, 2019, 04:45:32 PM
It's better to not need back up in the first place than to have available ships which are also weaker because of Augmented Drive Field.

You don't need more than 2 tugs anyways to replace Augmented Drive Field.
2 OX tugs gives +2 burn and 10 fuel per light year
Augmented Drive Field Hullmod gives +2 burn, and however much fuel in extra ships in replace the weaker ships.

Why compare 4-6 tugs to Augmented Field Drive? It's like comparing a Paragon to an Atlas.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Innominandum on September 01, 2019, 05:05:29 PM

Quote
i don't see the point of weakening your fleet so much when getting Ox tugs would simply make your fleet better.

More tugs instead of more backup combat ships I can swap into?  I rather have more combat ships if I can support them, especially if I plan to chain battle.

Just increase the fleet cap from 30 to something more reasonable like lets say 60 and while your at it increase the AI fleet cap to the same number or a (much) higher one, then fly around in an invaded sectors and watch your GPU melt.

What did i hear you say ? Your proud fleet consisting of 60 ventures has loaded up too many supplies ? No problem my good man, no problem at all, make your crew demand supplies, once there are no supplies left they can always just eat each other.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 01, 2019, 05:18:46 PM
Quote
2 OX tugs gives +2 burn and 10 fuel per light year
(Removed previous reply since I misread, but...)
and -2 fleet slots for something better, which I think is nearly anything else.  Also, 10 fuel/ly is huge early, only minor late.

Quote
It's better to not need back up in the first place than to have available ships which are also weaker because of Augmented Drive Field.
Why?  That makes no sense!  Back up is nice if I win a battle, but a ship got mauled.  Or if I chain battled so much that one ship runs low on CR and I want another ship to use in the meantime.  Or, AI officer screwed up and died, and needs a replacement now (instead of waiting an in-game week or longer for repairs).  Or because Reaper Harbinger removed, I want to cheese fights with lots of Reaper Afflictors (up to the fleet cap).  I think just about any other ship in the fleet is better than a tug.  Maybe no ship at all if I do not need another ship.  Most ships in my fleet do not even have Augmented Engines, just the slowest ones, which are like... two or three battleships, plus Astral, in my fleet.

With map size the way it is, it is impossible for a typical endgame fleet to deploy all.  Bringing backups is a nice convenience.  If I do not need backups, I can bring a leaner fleet instead.

The only endgame ships in my fleet that use Augmented Drive Field are Onslaught, Paragon, Astral, Legion, and the civilians.

If I want no tugs at all, I probably need to put Augmented Engines on Conquest, Odyssey, and all cruisers.  That is too harsh, with so many ships, and they do not have lots of OP like Onslaught and Paragon, so two tugs with Navigation 3 is okay.  More than two tugs is... not good.

Quote
Just increase the fleet cap from 30 to something more reasonable like lets say 60 and while your at it increase the AI fleet cap to the same number or a (much) higher one, then fly around in an invaded sectors and watch your GPU melt.
Since it is not in the in-game settings, changing that feels kind of dirty.  I avoid changing settings.json at all if I can help it.  The only thing I touch (reluctantly) is combat speed because the game plays unbearably slow at normal speed.  (Other games play faster.)
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 01, 2019, 06:46:43 PM
I gotta say I agree I'd rather have extra ships for mop up/chasing down/Rotating for CR. 30 seems like so much till you want more lol. The Tugs fuel use is brutal up until you have a planet and unlimited cash, because of that it limits which ships fit my fleet build.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Innominandum on September 01, 2019, 06:48:13 PM
Since it is not in the in-game settings, changing that feels kind of dirty.  I avoid changing settings.json at all if I can help it.  The only thing I touch (reluctantly) is combat speed because the game plays unbearably slow at normal speed.  (Other games play faster.)

Well sure, i would feel inclined to agree with you, that is, if the only thing one could archive through the editing of that fine parchment would be an easier time for ones self. As matters stand tough, the only thing that vaguely has any semblance of meaningful balance is the combat, anything else, if your not playing on hard mode, is alike to kicking a puppy. The game basically throws money and salvage at your face on every turn.

As for logistic hull mods like EO and AD on heavy's. I usually tend to use them even if I am not reasonably sure that i can refit before combat.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Goumindong on September 01, 2019, 07:22:16 PM
There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Igncom1 on September 02, 2019, 03:01:32 AM
Speed isn't as much of an issue when dealing with targets that can't run away like planets and domain probes.

For those, on a non-military shopping list you would be better off with salvaged cruiser of other types anyway. Or mass frigates/destroyers.

As for escaping.... stealth and guile are just as important as raw speed. Militarising your civilian ships is more important for the stealth bonus then it is for the speed bonus. Not that a venture should be used for smuggling ever anyway. Nor are cruisers suited to stealth as well.

I'd love a buff to the old venture however! Personally I'd be ok with another wing or two of those built in mining drones, or some more OP/small ballistic mounts. Possibly even a retrofitted venture MK.II! For the private militia on the rise!
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 02, 2019, 06:04:58 AM
Venture in early releases was a super hybrid.  It functioned more like a bigger Gemini (back when fighters were ships and not fancy missiles), and it was a good ship.  Still annoyingly slow, but useful.

Now, it is just a meat shield that can pump out few missiles.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on September 02, 2019, 06:15:55 AM
Im personally someone who uses augmented drive fields instead of Tugs and its honestly been working for me a lot better than tugs.

Sure I have to make my paragon a bit weaker, but I have to do that anyway because if you make your Paragons strong, it makes their flux management absolutely terrible, and the AI is very bad at that, so your forced to downgrade your Paragons anyway.

But on the flipside, I always have larger fleet points than my enemies because instead of 2 tugs I lug around 2 extra Paragons, hence I can always outdeploy my enemies. I have a current limit of 400 fleet size so I always have 240 fleet points (4 paragons) vs 160 fleet points that the enemy has, which is obviously not enough for the enemy to kill.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Serenitis on September 02, 2019, 08:51:34 AM
Venture in early releases was a super hybrid.  It functioned more like a bigger Gemini (back when fighters were ships and not fancy missiles), and it was a good ship.  Still annoyingly slow, but useful.

Now, it is just a meat shield that can pump out few missiles.
Yes! Super Gemini is the perfect description for what the Venture used to be.

You said "This looks like fun", did you put me in my place yet? I'm not feeling it.
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?

[e]
Finally got some time to do this adVenture. Took longer than I thought it would to put together.
Spoiler
This is the fleet I built:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/36liWEn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4iMFj3.png)
Five Line Cruisers fitted for punching holes in things.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/G6P6hdU.png)
[close]
Ten Fire Support Cruisers for bombardment.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/5jwJnEZ.png)
[close]
And one Flag Cruiser because GREEN.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/2ehfNgi.png)
I spent a while looking for an LP version (from Luddic Enhancement) but wasn't lucky.
[close]
Fleet also contains two Morae fitted for bombardment and kinetic support, six Pirate Falcons fitted as hybrid missile/carrier ships, one converted Colossus for bomb duty, a single Colossus with maximum cargo, a pair of salvage rigs for flavour, and two Blackrock Hawkmoths because cruiser tanker.
No officers were used.
None of this is 'optimal', but who cares? It's fun, effort is hard, and I spent way too much time doing this nonsense.
[close]
And without even trying I ran into these guys, who seemed to be quite well off but also very interested in recieving donations.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/i5sPRIl.png)
[close]
I only deployed the Ventures here and let them do whatever while I pondered how green my ship was.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/sEwvovG.png)
Ventures are good boys. They know to eat the rich without being told.
You can just see I lost two ships at the top of that image. Not a bad result for bricks.
[close]
What's next? We need something big, something to prove how 'good' our good boys are....
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/aG9HhBX.png)
That'll do.
[close]
I ended up deploying eveything here eventually, and got burnt spectacularly. I lost my flagship about 2/3 of the way through the battle due to a stunning display of mediocrity on my part, and everything fell to pieces shortly after, resulting in....
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/wqbSRS4.png)
All the good boys went to a better place.
[close]
But how much damage did they do to a battleship Ordo?
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/9VzVW2N.png)
They got six frigates, two destroyers, two cruisers, and the battleship.
I'm not hugely disappointed by that result.
[close]
Verdict:

Ventures are good. Not great, but good.

[close]
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 02, 2019, 12:58:48 PM
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?
Nice cover.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals don't change the actual mechanics even when you pretend they do?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Innominandum on September 02, 2019, 01:18:39 PM
You said "This looks like fun", did you put me in my place yet? I'm not feeling it.
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?

Nice cover.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals don't change the actual mechanics even when you pretend they do?

(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/tFK8urY6XHj2w/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Grievous69 on September 02, 2019, 01:20:56 PM
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?
Nice cover.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals don't change the actual mechanics even when you pretend they do?
You said "This looks like fun", did you put me in my place yet? I'm not feeling it.
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?
(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/tFK8urY6XHj2w/giphy.gif)
Nice gif.
Have you considered that making fun of others will only escalate the conflict and bring attention of mods?

(Sorry I had to do it to em)
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 02, 2019, 01:34:33 PM
lol
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 02, 2019, 02:11:13 PM
Anyways now that that fun it over with.

A side note for next patch, Venture and Drone tender will be bad to have if you are specialized in fighters as their drones will count against the skills limit for fighters lowering the bonus on all your real fighters. I am genuinely unhappy that the Drone tender will lose some viability, the Venture is caught in the same issue.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 02, 2019, 03:31:12 PM
Spoiler
You said "This looks like fun", did you put me in my place yet? I'm not feeling it.
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?

Nice cover.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals don't change the actual mechanics even when you pretend they do?

(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/tFK8urY6XHj2w/giphy.gif)
[close]
Please don't do this. There is no need to tastelessly deride either of them.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: ChaseBears on September 02, 2019, 03:47:57 PM
It is okay for ships to be bad as long as they still have a point.  The Venture's role as envisaged in its description - a cheap base ship - is kinda irrelevant in game the way the game mechanics and economics work.  Its role as a miner is also irrelevant.  So the Venture is just...bad.  I wish it wasnt, i have a soft spot for it.

Anyways now that that fun it over with.

A side note for next patch, Venture and Drone tender will be bad to have if you are specialized in fighters as their drones will count against the skills limit for fighters lowering the bonus on all your real fighters. I am genuinely unhappy that the Drone tender will lose some viability, the Venture is caught in the same issue.
Screws over Talon spam as well. Feh!



Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 02, 2019, 03:51:41 PM
There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.
And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Goumindong on September 02, 2019, 10:24:21 PM
There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.
And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on September 02, 2019, 10:34:07 PM
Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Innominandum on September 03, 2019, 12:53:46 AM
Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 02:31:20 AM
There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.
And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler
Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.
[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 02:58:59 AM
not only do the AI flank, even if its a result of "other" AI behavior, but you can create that situation by giving orders.

The AI does not have to have a concept of an anvil in order for it to happen and be an effective tactic. Its not "concepts from other games". "Hammer and Anvil" is like... good lord the concept has been around forever. And its a concept that exists because of a combination of concave producing a higher surface area with lower return potential and directional attributes of ships. And since both of those things exist in starsector i will continue to exploit them.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Igncom1 on September 03, 2019, 03:09:59 AM
I was going to say, it's a 2d game so stuff like this does exist. The AI isn't great at it but it does happen.

If anything it's the go to strategy for killing capital ships, just flank it while another ship is the bait.... or the anchor.

One strategy you can try at home is to deploy your heavy ships and rally them to the side of the map, when the enemy moves in for the surround bring your reserves in to hit them from the rear! Great for short lived frigates who shouldn't be out there for too long!
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Innominandum on September 03, 2019, 03:19:50 AM
One strategy you can try at home is to deploy your heavy ships and rally them to the side of the map, when the enemy moves in for the surround bring your reserves in to hit them from the rear! Great for short lived frigates who shouldn't be out there for too long!

Sigh ... wish there was an option to have certain lanky ships join the fight from the sides of the map, or the enemy rear, or enemy ships joining from your rear ... sigh
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 03:26:10 AM
Like I said, it's not a useful concept to apply to starsector. You can roleplay all you like, it doesn't change that you are trying to fit a squre peg into a round peg. "There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game" remains untrue, that even by your own definition. It doesn't really make sense in Starsector, a game with constantly shifting battle lines and even so a Venture wouldn't neccessarily be good at it.

Just look at Ingcom1. Isn't bait, or flank such a more useful description to strategic discussion? Don't be inflexible, use words to describe and communicate what can or is occuring than loanwords, that you have to make up personal definitions for? But well done, Goumindong, you've co-opted and is using better words like I do and you just have, at least you can describe and communicate concepts better.


One strategy you can try at home is to deploy your heavy ships and rally them to the side of the map, when the enemy moves in for the surround bring your reserves in to hit them from the rear! Great for short lived frigates who shouldn't be out there for too long!
Not as effective now that you can't place rally points so close to the edge of your own deployment and your ships now kind of bounce from the edge. Doesn't even have to be "heavy" and frigates either.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 03:50:17 AM
Quote
Just look at Ingcom1. Isn't bait, or flank such a more useful description to strategic discussion?

No. Because Ventures neither bait or flank. Frigates bait all the time (its the harass AI action) as an example. This keeps them busy and often draws them away from the rest of their fleet. Flank is the what its called when you get behind/to the side the units. Called thus because thats what a flank is. Ventures don't do that. They tank. Since there are different types of "tank" (A falcon can tank as an example. But it will not be the same strategic type as a Venture) its reasonable that there are different terms for different types.

Are you really getting this bent out of shape because you didn't like the term anvil even if you knew what it meant?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 05:40:17 AM
All ships can keep other ships "busy". A couple of tempests can usually keep any ship busy indefinitely as can a phase frigate till it runs out of CR. But you keep changing want you mean by anvil to whatever suits your purposes.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: SCC on September 03, 2019, 06:17:04 AM
An anvil is a ship that's not particularly fast or damaging, but it can take a lot of punishment. They hold the line and prevent other ships (including themselves) from being flanked, and if the enemy is being flanked, they prevent him from paying full attention to flankers and becoming vulnerable in the process.
A hammer is typically a ship that's fast and focused on dealing damage, be it because of burst and mobility combo, or because of its innately good offensive stats.
A distraction ship's role is to distract the enemy. It does not have to be able to sustain damage, since it's role isn't maintaining a formation, but disrupting the enemy's. It's only requirement is that it's able to survive on its own for some time on its own.
A flanker is a ship that flanks. It can be a part of the hammer, it can just be a distraction ship. If you love high tech, you can even try to create tough flanker ships and try to trap the enemy in multiple "fronts".
An anchor is a ship that allows other ships to take a breath. It typically means ships that have lots of burst just to drive the enemy flux up (and make AI cowardly), or ones that can point their guns in all directions. Long range is recommended.

Unless you provide better terms for hammer and anvil, that's what I'm going to use. It's not perfectly accurate, but when has ever warfare stopped changing?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on September 03, 2019, 06:50:43 AM
There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.
And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler
Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.
[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.

Fast Missile Racks is a terrible ability due to how fast it makes you use up all your limited ammunition, and considering the Venture's limited mounts, it becomes completely useless after firing a few intense volleys. Instead, it should become a dedicated and affordable missile cruiser that even a civillian can afford by getting the Reloader system instead.

It has surveying equipment but Surveying by itself isn't enough to make the Venture worth its credits; it needs both Surveying and Salvage Gantry built in to offset the fact that it has a civillian hull and bad burn + its other bad stats.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 03, 2019, 07:41:36 AM
It is okay for ships to be bad as long as they still have a point.  The Venture's role as envisaged in its description - a cheap base ship - is kinda irrelevant in game the way the game mechanics and economics work.  Its role as a miner is also irrelevant.  So the Venture is just...bad.  I wish it wasnt, i have a soft spot for it.

Anyways now that that fun it over with.

A side note for next patch, Venture and Drone tender will be bad to have if you are specialized in fighters as their drones will count against the skills limit for fighters lowering the bonus on all your real fighters. I am genuinely unhappy that the Drone tender will lose some viability, the Venture is caught in the same issue.
Screws over Talon spam as well. Feh!

Indeed, it is described in a way that is highly appealing to me. Like a workhorse civilian cruisers with poor fighting ability but excellent support ability. I just find that the reality of the game mechanics don't fit the description at all.

It's cost in credits/supplies/fuel are all in line with other cruisers that are faster and fight better. I mean slap surveying equipment on any cruiser and you have have a better ship.

For example

Better replacements
Gryphon only 5 more supplies for a real missile cruiser, same fuel. Initial cost is higher.
Falcon (which is lack luster) cost the same supplies and fuel. About the same initial cost.
Apogee (who people oddly like to compare to it) is only 3 more supplies and 1 LESS FUEL. Initial cost is higher.

Stand outs
Colossus Mk II/III (yep that LP/pirate fodder) are cheaper and fight better supplies 9(II)/8(III), fuel 3(II)/3(III) (Venture is 15 supplies, 3 fuel). Basic costs are vastly cheaper in credits and have better defined roles. These are cruiser you can afford to use as fodder. They are common both in Black Market and the battle field. Mk III's fighter slots mean it's a threat to far better enemy ships. Both of these ships have 300 cargo space almost matching the Venture with 50 more for that utility. Mk III also comes with Ground support package which only comes on the Valkyrie (non combat troop transport).

And before someone says all carriers pose a threat to better ships I point out that Mk III is the most common carrier in the game followed by condor which is slower in combat/costs more supplies/less hull/less armor, 1 more fuel is the only downside. I had no clue it was slower and cost more supplies till now. Seems like the Colossus is a direct upgrade on the condor, but that's a different matter.

Seems like Colossus Mk III is worth another look in my future plays.

As far as talon spam being nerfed.
Yep that sucks and it makes the Hanger ship mod garbage, basic OP for the mod and increase OP cost fighters decrease long term effectiveness of replacement in addition only to weaken specialization bonus. I'll likely be avoiding specializations if they have restrictions that screw with my general fleet strategy, I use Talons on nearly all non carrier/capital ships. Anyone trying to max the fighter bonus would be avoiding this ship mod and all mining drone ships like the plague.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 03, 2019, 07:44:05 AM
Sigh ... wish there was an option to have certain lanky ships join the fight from the sides of the map, or the enemy rear, or enemy ships joining from your rear ... sigh

This sir is what command points SHOULD be for. Not for stopping the AI from being dumb.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Megas on September 03, 2019, 07:50:05 AM
I bring Colossus 3 mainly for Ground Support Package.  (Colossus 3 is much more common than Valkyrie.)  Nice when my fleet is small and I do not have unlimited money for many marines.  Also has decent cargo capacity.  Great ship for raiding New Maxios, few other industry worlds, and pirate bases.  Colossus 3 may stink at fighting, but it is a great early campaign ship.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 09:36:16 AM
Spoiler
An anvil is a ship that's not particularly fast or damaging, but it can take a lot of punishment. They hold the line and prevent other ships (including themselves) from being flanked, and if the enemy is being flanked, they prevent him from paying full attention to flankers and becoming vulnerable in the process.
A hammer is typically a ship that's fast and focused on dealing damage, be it because of burst and mobility combo, or because of its innately good offensive stats.
A distraction ship's role is to distract the enemy. It does not have to be able to sustain damage, since it's role isn't maintaining a formation, but disrupting the enemy's. It's only requirement is that it's able to survive on its own for some time on its own.
A flanker is a ship that flanks. It can be a part of the hammer, it can just be a distraction ship. If you love high tech, you can even try to create tough flanker ships and try to trap the enemy in multiple "fronts".
An anchor is a ship that allows other ships to take a breath. It typically means ships that have lots of burst just to drive the enemy flux up (and make AI cowardly), or ones that can point their guns in all directions. Long range is recommended.

Unless you provide better terms for hammer and anvil, that's what I'm going to use. It's not perfectly accurate, but when has ever warfare stopped changing?
[close]

Those are just your personal definitions for your personal tactics. And different from Goumindou's anyhow. And mine. No one in modern military parlance would ever use hammer and anvil. In fact, there is no record of its use in antiquity. It's a phrase of armchair generals with doubtful etymology in wargaming.

___________


There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.
And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler
Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.
[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.

Fast Missile Racks is a terrible ability due to how fast it makes you use up all your limited ammunition, and considering the Venture's limited mounts, it becomes completely useless after firing a few intense volleys. Instead, it should become a dedicated and affordable missile cruiser that even a civillian can afford by getting the Reloader system instead.

It has surveying equipment but Surveying by itself isn't enough to make the Venture worth its credits; it needs both Surveying and Salvage Gantry built in to offset the fact that it has a civillian hull and bad burn + its other bad stats.
At this point I am at loss by what you mean by reloader system. I thought the Venture's ship system is a reloader system, but according to you it is not. I am obviosuly missing something. Would you care to explain?

I don't see a point for a a dedicated and affordable civilian missile cruiser. Why not an affordable civilian missile capital ship? Or any one of hundred of roles? Why that one in particular? Venture does the role of a civilian cruiser well enough; being both a cruiser and more available in civilian markets.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Innominandum on September 03, 2019, 09:52:09 AM
This sir is what command points SHOULD be for. Not for stopping the AI from being dumb.

Well you know what the funny thing is? The functionality is already partly there, remember how the enemy fleet engages you when you fail to disengage? Yeah exactly ... i find my heart breaking every time that deployment screen comes up ... sniff sniff 
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 01:56:45 PM
All ships can keep other ships "busy". A couple of tempests can usually keep any ship busy indefinitely as can a phase frigate till it runs out of CR. But you keep changing want you mean by anvil to whatever suits your purposes.

Yes but i dont want to keep them busy i want to keep them in the same spot.  And tempests do not do that because they retreat when you fly at them or they die. We just... literally just talked about how those things are different.

I am not changing what i mean by anvil. You seem to not be understanding. Is it me? Does the rest of the thread understand?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 03, 2019, 03:16:37 PM
I think I know what you mean by anvil, although I tend to use the word tank more. In other scenarios anvil would refer to a geometrical relationship (the anvil would be behind the enemy preventing them retreating or avoiding a charge or something) which is I think why people are getting so bent out of shape (no idea why). More abstractly though, I would say there are things that cause the enemy to vulnerable and things that exploit the vulnerability. The flux mechanics in this game result in a scenario where expending offensive resources results in a loss of defensive capability so ships that tank damage are causing the enemy to become more vulnerable. In that sense, I think tanky ships can be seen as anvils since they prevent the enemy from going where they want to go (to kill the squishy damage dealers) and also cause the enemy to become more vulnerable. Distracting/avoiding damage can have a similar effect but definitely not the same effect. They tend to more cause the enemy to me mispositioned and less to be high on flux so they might be more or less effective depending on the enemy. I think it's worthwhile to make the distinction. The term anvil is a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly usable to describe that idea and I have thought in those terms before when designing fleets.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Eji1700 on September 03, 2019, 04:09:47 PM
I will again say i think the venture is a perfectly fine hull.  It's a cruiser hull that's really more inbetween Destroyer and Cruiser, but that's ok for what is supposed to be the "low end salvagers" ship.

It would help ship balance a lot in general to both tweak weapons a bit more and another pass at ship/weapon availability.

Further I think the apogee comparison is kinda silly because while they're both great front line ships their loadouts and systems do heavily influence their roles. A venture can kill fluxed ships while an apogee is a lot more defensive/support thanks to its flares.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 04:38:31 PM
Apogee can absolutely aggresively kill ships by themselves. No need to be pre-fluxed, they simply flux and kill ships by themselves. I've made fleets out of them. (Only because the only useful cruiser blueprint I had at the time was Apogee and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. This was before their slight shield nerf, but it shouldn't change how they act too much.) Choose a Plasma Cannon on them and ignore the small frontal energy mount for best results. Their main weakness is against frigates and fighters. So give it a pair of pulse lasers and if you are really worried about fighters place a Locust SRM Launcher instead of any other large missile mount.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Eji1700 on September 03, 2019, 04:48:52 PM
Apogee can absolutely aggresively kill ships by themselves. No need to be pre-fluxed, they simply flux and kill ships by themselves. I've made fleets out of them. (Only because the only useful cruiser blueprint I had at the time was Apogee and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. This was before their slight shield nerf, but it shouldn't change how they act too much.) Choose a Plasma Cannon on them and ignore the small frontal energy mount for best results. Their main weakness is against frigates and fighters. So give it a pair of pulse lasers and if you are really worried about fighters place a Locust SRM Launcher instead of any other large missile mount.
And a feet of ventures can alpha strike down capitals with sabot/harpoon spam, but if you're using them to compliment a fleet rather than just making a fleet of them they're often is slightly different roles given that the venture is a heavy missile boat + PD and the apogee is close to jack of all, master of none.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on September 03, 2019, 07:01:58 PM
Spoiler
An anvil is a ship that's not particularly fast or damaging, but it can take a lot of punishment. They hold the line and prevent other ships (including themselves) from being flanked, and if the enemy is being flanked, they prevent him from paying full attention to flankers and becoming vulnerable in the process.
A hammer is typically a ship that's fast and focused on dealing damage, be it because of burst and mobility combo, or because of its innately good offensive stats.
A distraction ship's role is to distract the enemy. It does not have to be able to sustain damage, since it's role isn't maintaining a formation, but disrupting the enemy's. It's only requirement is that it's able to survive on its own for some time on its own.
A flanker is a ship that flanks. It can be a part of the hammer, it can just be a distraction ship. If you love high tech, you can even try to create tough flanker ships and try to trap the enemy in multiple "fronts".
An anchor is a ship that allows other ships to take a breath. It typically means ships that have lots of burst just to drive the enemy flux up (and make AI cowardly), or ones that can point their guns in all directions. Long range is recommended.

Unless you provide better terms for hammer and anvil, that's what I'm going to use. It's not perfectly accurate, but when has ever warfare stopped changing?
[close]

Those are just your personal definitions for your personal tactics. And different from Goumindou's anyhow. And mine. No one in modern military parlance would ever use hammer and anvil. In fact, there is no record of its use in antiquity. It's a phrase of armchair generals with doubtful etymology in wargaming.

___________


There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.
And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler
Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.
[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.

Fast Missile Racks is a terrible ability due to how fast it makes you use up all your limited ammunition, and considering the Venture's limited mounts, it becomes completely useless after firing a few intense volleys. Instead, it should become a dedicated and affordable missile cruiser that even a civillian can afford by getting the Reloader system instead.

It has surveying equipment but Surveying by itself isn't enough to make the Venture worth its credits; it needs both Surveying and Salvage Gantry built in to offset the fact that it has a civillian hull and bad burn + its other bad stats.
At this point I am at loss by what you mean by reloader system. I thought the Venture's ship system is a reloader system, but according to you it is not. I am obviosuly missing something. Would you care to explain?

I don't see a point for a a dedicated and affordable civilian missile cruiser. Why not an affordable civilian missile capital ship? Or any one of hundred of roles? Why that one in particular? Venture does the role of a civilian cruiser well enough; being both a cruiser and more available in civilian markets.

I think im talking about a modded ship actually, because I can't find it on the Wiki as a vanilla ship. Its basically a full missile ship considered the "Yang" to the Onslaught and has a system that rapidly reloads all missiles, and built in hammer barrages into the front.

My bad.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 03, 2019, 08:12:58 PM
Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Pappus on September 03, 2019, 08:22:54 PM
Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.
But for what? It is only 15 DP.

You already have capital ship armor - if you think that is useable or not is a thing about armor, not the venture
You have great ability + great missile slots for that size
Nice dual medium ballistic

You have distincticly low speed which is neither a plus or a negative - if you want something to accompany your onslaught it will work better with ventures than with falcon P.

All things considered I think it might be time for a proper ship showcase for the venture.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on September 04, 2019, 06:36:05 AM
Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.
But for what? It is only 15 DP.

You already have capital ship armor - if you think that is useable or not is a thing about armor, not the venture
You have great ability + great missile slots for that size
Nice dual medium ballistic

You have distincticly low speed which is neither a plus or a negative - if you want something to accompany your onslaught it will work better with ventures than with falcon P.

All things considered I think it might be time for a proper ship showcase for the venture.

Its supposed to be a exploration ship. While im OK with the mining pods, no salvage gantry for such a mess of a ship is a deal breaker for me. This is especially so with the Venture due to it being a civillian ship, so you HAVE to use up a logistics slot for militarized subsystems to make it viable, and maybe even augmented drivefield to make it fast. Its not even the burn that sucks, its the high sensor profile and maintenance costs you have to pay for fielding a civillian hull (which is very bad for a cruiser level ship due to its exponential costs).

Having more out of combat useability might make me want to buy or keep ventures I find out in the wilds. Right now, though, its pretty useless (at least to me) when you consider other more specialized ships and their bonuses.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 04, 2019, 06:37:31 AM
Apogee can absolutely aggresively kill ships by themselves. No need to be pre-fluxed, they simply flux and kill ships by themselves. I've made fleets out of them. (Only because the only useful cruiser blueprint I had at the time was Apogee and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. This was before their slight shield nerf, but it shouldn't change how they act too much.) Choose a Plasma Cannon on them and ignore the small frontal energy mount for best results. Their main weakness is against frigates and fighters. So give it a pair of pulse lasers and if you are really worried about fighters place a Locust SRM Launcher instead of any other large missile mount.
And a feet of ventures can alpha strike down capitals with sabot/harpoon spam, but if you're using them to compliment a fleet rather than just making a fleet of them they're often is slightly different roles given that the venture is a heavy missile boat + PD and the apogee is close to jack of all, master of none.
I've tried that before. Like I said, I didn't have any other cruiser blueprints and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. Their missiles get shot down and is extremely vulnerable to fighters. Even if you could alpha strike like you said, what happens next? Ventures are too slow to comfortable retreat. Lose all the ships?

Jack of all is a compliment is it not? But it isn't an Apogee isn't a jack of all trades anyways. It's a bit like a smaller Dominator specialised for fighting against other cruisers and capitals and notably weaker against frigates. It's a bit strange to call the Apogee a lot more defensive/support thanks to its flares. Having flares don't change any of the useful characteristics of an Apogee. The uses of a ship goes beyond extrapolating from its ship system.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Serenitis on September 04, 2019, 09:00:42 AM
Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.

I think the salvage gantry might be a bridge too far considering this is the 'base' level cruiser in the game. It can already reduce survey costs.
But I very much agree that an unlocked fighter bay like versions past, would make the ship somewhat more attractive for general use.

One of the reasons the Venture exists in the fashion it does and is assigned to the default base_bp, is to give in-game factions without access to a heavy industry the ability to field at least something that does a passable job of being a fleet anchor.
With the limited ability act as a carrier, the Venture would be a little more effective in this role for the tradeoff that the OP cost of the fighters still has to come out of the ship's loadout thus reducing it's already limited combat potential. This incentivises the use of 'cheap' fighters, but still leaves the option to specialise in that direction if desired.

If this is still too unbalanced for your taste, you could also consider removing the fighter bay and giving the Venture a built-in converted hangar. This would effectively restrict it's use of bombers, and even further incentivise the use of the cheaper fighters.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Plantissue on September 04, 2019, 09:43:32 AM
Personally I think the Venture fulfills its game role well enough. If a reason is needed to actively buy one than to destroy or salvage one, reducing its buying cost to a more "civilian" level should be enough. That said I don't really see a gameplay or description reason to not give it Salvage Gantry, except that it suits the Apogee more to have it.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on September 04, 2019, 09:50:00 AM
Id rather the removal of the fighter bay all together if it gives the Venture a Salvage Gantry and make its a true cheap cost exploration cruisers; something that is reliable but can be thrown away if you get over your head (aka you accidentally run into a Ordos fleet when risking a jump into a medium beacon station in hopes of finding good loot).

While the Apogee is nice, a cheaper, civillian, and more readily available low tech option (the Venture) with a Salvage Gantry would make sense.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Serenitis on September 05, 2019, 09:11:46 AM
Id rather the removal of the fighter bay all together if it gives the Venture a Salvage Gantry

I'd prefer the greater flexibility of fighters, but the game really does need some more salvage oriented ships.
I could live with this tbh.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Eji1700 on September 05, 2019, 12:46:45 PM
I think forcing mining drones is fine.  It's flavorful for the ship.  If the ship needs to be better I think a mixture of cost adjustments and usefulness of mining drones themselves might be worth looking into (it'd be nice if they assisted salvage, maybe have them ignore minimum armor as well).
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 05, 2019, 01:21:05 PM
I think the salvage gantry might be a bridge too far considering this is the 'base' level cruiser in the game. It can already reduce survey costs.
But I very much agree that an unlocked fighter bay like versions past, would make the ship somewhat more attractive for general use.

One of the reasons the Venture exists in the fashion it does and is assigned to the default base_bp, is to give in-game factions without access to a heavy industry the ability to field at least something that does a passable job of being a fleet anchor.
With the limited ability act as a carrier, the Venture would be a little more effective in this role for the tradeoff that the OP cost of the fighters still has to come out of the ship's loadout thus reducing it's already limited combat potential. This incentivises the use of 'cheap' fighters, but still leaves the option to specialise in that direction if desired.

If this is still too unbalanced for your taste, you could also consider removing the fighter bay and giving the Venture a built-in converted hangar. This would effectively restrict it's use of bombers, and even further incentivise the use of the cheaper fighters.

Gantry > Survey equipment. Just my opinion of relative value as Survey equipment only means less heavy machine needed, which is not something I miss or even notice if I'm missing. I get it from the angle of OP cost, but at the same time I feel like all the support type mods are overpriced. So if I had to pick, Gantry would be better and suit how it gets used in game. Both Pirates/Scavengers would have a RP and game mechanics reason to use one, more loot. Currently both those groups use no Salvaging Ships, which you'd think would be logical for them to do.

Converted hanger bays would be fine, removing the pointless mining drones. Now that I'm thinking about it I'm not sure why there is no upgrade to mining drones, I mean there should be a Military/Pirate/LP variant that is better (more costly too) suited for fighting.

Ventures description for quick reference.

"Tough, dependable and not overly expensive, Venture-class cruisers are usually constructed by private corporations for escort duty or by small non-aligned worlds for system defense.

The Venture-class ships are perhaps the most widely used civilian cruisers in the Sector. The blueprints for the Venture are widely available and can often be secured without too much trouble.

When used by small corporations, the ship is usually the pride of the fleet and is used to underpin vital operations. Due to its ubiquity, the vessel also serves with quite a few pirate outfits, where it sometimes fills the role of command ship." –In-Game Description

It doesn't seem to be a specific mining ship, so the mining drones are there for no reason. I'd argue it's cost is rather expensive as in terms of literal in game credits, for another 10-30k you could buy a far better cruiser or buy 2 Collossus Mk III (generally better in every way).

It should be widely used for a reason beyond it being common. If you wanted missiles, Kite spam with missile racks, that's cheap and deadly.

The Anvil and Anchor stuff is personal strats and not a reason to buy or/build or even want a Venture. It being a common BP should be matched by a logistical reasoning in game for it to see such wide used. Currently the reasoning seems extremely meta, a big fodder ship.

edit:
I agree with you Eji1700, mining drones could have utility attached to their existence as they are non combat in RP but do nothing non combat in mechanics.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Wyvern on September 05, 2019, 01:28:38 PM
Just my opinion of relative value as Survey equipment only means less heavy machine needed
It also means less supplies needed, which adds up fast if you're on a longer exploration expedition.  There is a threshold past which it's not worth adding more surveying equipment, but when all those little volcanic worlds cost 5 supplies instead of 40...

On the other hand, if we did swap the Venture's surveying equipment for a salvage gantry, I'd consider it a net upgrade; you can add surveying equipment after-market if you need to, but the salvage gantry is only available as a built-in hull mod.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Ragebrew on September 05, 2019, 07:13:14 PM
Just my opinion of relative value as Survey equipment only means less heavy machine needed
It also means less supplies needed, which adds up fast if you're on a longer exploration expedition.  There is a threshold past which it's not worth adding more surveying equipment, but when all those little volcanic worlds cost 5 supplies instead of 40...

On the other hand, if we did swap the Venture's surveying equipment for a salvage gantry, I'd consider it a net upgrade; you can add surveying equipment after-market if you need to, but the salvage gantry is only available as a built-in hull mod.

I wish Salvage Gantry wasn't restricted to a handful of ships. It really, really should be just like any other. Because frankly, I never use salvage rigs in my deep space exploration fleets, rather gather a swarm of Shepherd. Those can at least fight back a little if I find myself running from something big and scary.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 05, 2019, 07:46:53 PM
Just my opinion of relative value as Survey equipment only means less heavy machine needed
It also means less supplies needed, which adds up fast if you're on a longer exploration expedition.  There is a threshold past which it's not worth adding more surveying equipment, but when all those little volcanic worlds cost 5 supplies instead of 40...

On the other hand, if we did swap the Venture's surveying equipment for a salvage gantry, I'd consider it a net upgrade; you can add surveying equipment after-market if you need to, but the salvage gantry is only available as a built-in hull mod.

While I acknowledge this is the case I point out that on individual trips that you simply don't do enough surveying to justify it as a requirement. Where as I will not run mid game without 2 salvage ships.

Really neither of those mods is overwhelming, it's mostly what is feels required (Gantry) vs what would I would like to have (survey equipment).

Who honestly believes if they stuck a Gantry on the Venture that the fleet meta would change in any way aside from people making space for 1 or maybe 2 ventures in crazy cases. I certainly don't think it's suddenly become a required ship. I think it would become one of those ships people would advise you getting "If you get a chance to get a Venture do it because it's a good support ship".

It's unlikely it will change however so it's likely gonna need to be a mod if I want that to be the case.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Wyvern on September 05, 2019, 08:19:36 PM
I do individual trips that include surveys of 30+ planets; having surveying equipment on multiple cruisers easily saves me multiple thousands of supplies.  I guess your trips are just one system at a time rather than clearing out multiple constellations?
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 05, 2019, 08:46:08 PM
I do individual trips that include surveys of 30+ planets; having surveying equipment on multiple cruisers easily saves me multiple thousands of supplies.  I guess your trips are just one system at a time rather than clearing out multiple constellations?

Generally I just survey planets with ruins or planets I think might be worth settling. I guess if I wanted to go all completionist I'd require one. I can see which planets have ruins so why am I scanning some pointless Barren or w/e world?

That sounds like unproductive busy work.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Ragebrew on September 05, 2019, 09:09:47 PM
I do individual trips that include surveys of 30+ planets; having surveying equipment on multiple cruisers easily saves me multiple thousands of supplies.  I guess your trips are just one system at a time rather than clearing out multiple constellations?

Generally I just survey planets with ruins or planets I think might be worth settling. I guess if I wanted to go all completionist I'd require one. I can see which planets have ruins so why am I scanning some pointless Barren or w/e world?

That sounds like unproductive busy work.

Check the sell price for surveying data. The only one not really worth the time and effort are class 1 worlds. If you have a fully decked out surveying fleet, where even gas giants only take 5 supply, you can make a LOT of money surveying. Plenty of class 4 gas giants, volcanic worlds, toxic worlds, barren worlds even. Ultrarich veins can happen anywhere.

My exploration fleet tends to be an Apogee if I can find one, four Ventures, assorted support ships like a few Drams and cargo haulers, all with Surveying equipment if I can find it. Given how bountiful some systems can be, with derelict ships and probes, and other such things, it's quite easy to hurl myself off into the far corners of space and only be limited by how much stuff I can carry, not the size of my fuel tank. Give them all militarized subsystems, have the +1 burn skill, and suddenly you can outrun anything you don't want to fight, and chase down anything you do want to fight.

The Venture will never be a dedicated combat craft, and that's alright. It was not designed as one. It's a civilian exploration craft, and should be used as such. Militarized subsystems allow it to explore better, not fight better. Less sensor profile, more burn means I can hope planets faster, and cram more crew into less ships when I want to finally settle somewhere.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: nonomo4 on September 05, 2019, 09:58:54 PM
I do individual trips that include surveys of 30+ planets; having surveying equipment on multiple cruisers easily saves me multiple thousands of supplies.  I guess your trips are just one system at a time rather than clearing out multiple constellations?

Generally I just survey planets with ruins or planets I think might be worth settling. I guess if I wanted to go all completionist I'd require one. I can see which planets have ruins so why am I scanning some pointless Barren or w/e world?

That sounds like unproductive busy work.

Check the sell price for surveying data. The only one not really worth the time and effort are class 1 worlds. If you have a fully decked out surveying fleet, where even gas giants only take 5 supply, you can make a LOT of money surveying. Plenty of class 4 gas giants, volcanic worlds, toxic worlds, barren worlds even. Ultrarich veins can happen anywhere.

My exploration fleet tends to be an Apogee if I can find one, four Ventures, assorted support ships like a few Drams and cargo haulers, all with Surveying equipment if I can find it. Given how bountiful some systems can be, with derelict ships and probes, and other such things, it's quite easy to hurl myself off into the far corners of space and only be limited by how much stuff I can carry, not the size of my fuel tank. Give them all militarized subsystems, have the +1 burn skill, and suddenly you can outrun anything you don't want to fight, and chase down anything you do want to fight.

The Venture will never be a dedicated combat craft, and that's alright. It was not designed as one. It's a civilian exploration craft, and should be used as such. Militarized subsystems allow it to explore better, not fight better. Less sensor profile, more burn means I can hope planets faster, and cram more crew into less ships when I want to finally settle somewhere.

I feel like this is the key. A ship really only needs one purpose to be the reason it exist. While being common may not be good enough for some people to justify getting it themselves, it could be good enough for others to pick up the ship instead. After all, that's why you will more likely then not see this ship in fleets and it's the reason the ship is phased out later for better options when available. The only reason I would feel like the ship needs to be rebalanced is if there was a ship that was equally available that was superior to it in all aspects (price, fighting aiblity, usefulness). As long as there's a plus side to a ship verses another (even it being just being more common), then it's fine in my books.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Agile on September 06, 2019, 03:39:50 AM
I do individual trips that include surveys of 30+ planets; having surveying equipment on multiple cruisers easily saves me multiple thousands of supplies.  I guess your trips are just one system at a time rather than clearing out multiple constellations?

Generally I just survey planets with ruins or planets I think might be worth settling. I guess if I wanted to go all completionist I'd require one. I can see which planets have ruins so why am I scanning some pointless Barren or w/e world?

That sounds like unproductive busy work.

Check the sell price for surveying data. The only one not really worth the time and effort are class 1 worlds. If you have a fully decked out surveying fleet, where even gas giants only take 5 supply, you can make a LOT of money surveying. Plenty of class 4 gas giants, volcanic worlds, toxic worlds, barren worlds even. Ultrarich veins can happen anywhere.

My exploration fleet tends to be an Apogee if I can find one, four Ventures, assorted support ships like a few Drams and cargo haulers, all with Surveying equipment if I can find it. Given how bountiful some systems can be, with derelict ships and probes, and other such things, it's quite easy to hurl myself off into the far corners of space and only be limited by how much stuff I can carry, not the size of my fuel tank. Give them all militarized subsystems, have the +1 burn skill, and suddenly you can outrun anything you don't want to fight, and chase down anything you do want to fight.

The Venture will never be a dedicated combat craft, and that's alright. It was not designed as one. It's a civilian exploration craft, and should be used as such. Militarized subsystems allow it to explore better, not fight better. Less sensor profile, more burn means I can hope planets faster, and cram more crew into less ships when I want to finally settle somewhere.

I feel like this is the key. A ship really only needs one purpose to be the reason it exist. While being common may not be good enough for some people to justify getting it themselves, it could be good enough for others to pick up the ship instead. After all, that's why you will more likely then not see this ship in fleets and it's the reason the ship is phased out later for better options when available. The only reason I would feel like the ship needs to be rebalanced is if there was a ship that was equally available that was superior to it in all aspects (price, fighting aiblity, usefulness). As long as there's a plus side to a ship verses another (even it being just being more common), then it's fine in my books.

I still believe that the Apogee is better in every way (and still holds its own late game) while the Venture's only thing is being "common". Even Kite's, that are common, have their own uses early to early-mid game if you kit them out properly. Venture's are pretty lack luster for the commitment of having a cruiser.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 06, 2019, 10:23:20 AM
Did you know the price difference between a Dominator and a Venture on the black market is only 30k? Buy a Dominator and stick a Survey mod on it. It's a superior ship in every single way, not just a little better either. Vastly superior. It also doesn't need militarization to have 8 burn, so the survey space is paid for if that was the ships secondary role. 2 more fuel and 10 more supplies but the fighting power increase clearly pays for the costs. A venture would need fighting ships to make up for it's weakness in combat, nothing costing 10 supplies and 2 fuel is gonna equal that difference.

30k difference in cost is a joke and you could do this exact same thing with other cheaper cruisers.

Survey and Militarization are both logistical hull mods so it'd be a direct trade 1 for 1.

The Venture needs to be far cheaper or far more useful. Who would disagree?

Survey equipment is better then I initially thought, which is good to know. Thank you to those sharing their knowledge on that matter. Not sure if it's better then Gantry, I think that's more a play style then a mechanics issue.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Ragebrew on September 06, 2019, 01:58:21 PM
Did you know the price difference between a Dominator and a Venture on the black market is only 30k? Buy a Dominator and stick a Survey mod on it. It's a superior ship in every single way, not just a little better either. Vastly superior. It also doesn't need militarization to have 8 burn, so the survey space is paid for if that was the ships secondary role. 2 more fuel and 10 more supplies but the fighting power increase clearly pays for the costs. A venture would need fighting ships to make up for it's weakness in combat, nothing costing 10 supplies and 2 fuel is gonna equal that difference.

30k difference in cost is a joke and you could do this exact same thing with other cheaper cruisers.

Survey and Militarization are both logistical hull mods so it'd be a direct trade 1 for 1.

The Venture needs to be far cheaper or far more useful. Who would disagree?

Survey equipment is better then I initially thought, which is good to know. Thank you to those sharing their knowledge on that matter. Not sure if it's better then Gantry, I think that's more a play style then a mechanics issue.

Can't always find an Surveying Mod for sale. I tried to get one in my last run, eventually gave up after the sixth system checked, and just went out into space to find one.

The Venture carries more than double the cargo of a Dominator, which is a vital thing when performing exploration. Yeah, I could just get more ships to fill out my cargo hauling needs, but that's more crew I need to pay, more fuel I need to provide, more supplies I need to spend on maint and repairs. It also only costs 3 fuel per LY compared to the Dom's 5, 15 supply to the Dom's 25. Yeah, you can get to a point where that really doesn't matter, but getting to that point can take a while, and every credit saved is a credit put towards getting your colonies set up and the REAL money rolling in.

I will agree that the Venture is an inferior combat vessel, but it's original purpose is NOT combat. It's a nice jack of all trades ship, cheap and plentiful, easy to upkeep, and designed for the niche of civilian exploration. The Apogee is without a doubt a better ship in every way that matters, except I have NEVER seen one of those bastards for sale, while I can run a circuit of core worlds and come away with a six pack of Ventures.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 02:01:55 PM
Having dedicated haulers and dedicated combat ships is better on both accounts, I think most of the hybrid ships are a trap.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Igncom1 on September 06, 2019, 02:05:46 PM
Which is a classic discussion. Specialists vs generalists.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Ragebrew on September 06, 2019, 02:35:08 PM
Having dedicated haulers and dedicated combat ships is better on both accounts, I think most of the hybrid ships are a trap.

Jack of all trade, master of none. When I'm out exploring, the only thing I want to fight are Domain probe guards, which a Venture has no problem with. A few Gemini to supplement my hauling and surveying gives me a pretty imposing all round fleet that only the largest pirate fleets want to bother with. No civvie Gems either, THOSE are a trap. But rolling around with five Ventures supported by 5 Geminis is a pretty unstoppable exploration force. With Surveying on all of them, there is literally NO planet you can't survey, even the titanic gas giants in nebs.

Mind, this is because I LOVE hurling myself off into deep space, and do something like 100+ planet surveys, plus all the various ruin, station, derelicts you'll find along the way. Coming back to the Core with 4 Synch cores, and 50 AI cores makes the initial investment to get the fleet together well worth it.

Niches exist for a reason, and the Venture's niche is aggressive exploration. Strip mine entire constellations of their wealth with a small fleet of them, then sell off your haul, and buy some proper warships for when you need them. If I'm not fighting, I don't need dedicated warships. If I'm not trading, I don't need dedicated haulers. I need ships that can do a little of everything, cause exploration involves a little of everything.

Which is a classic discussion. Specialists vs generalists.

In the words of the Major, over specialization breeds in weakness.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Locklave on September 06, 2019, 03:58:06 PM
Having dedicated haulers and dedicated combat ships is better on both accounts, I think most of the hybrid ships are a trap.

I both completely agree and completely disagree at the same time.

The stage you are at in the game greatly impacts ship choices.

- Early to mid game you take the best you can get even if it's sub optimal. Early to mid game I use tons of (P) Mules for reasons I outlined, hauling/fighting not great at anything but solid. General function is needed as you lack both fighting and support. Mostly because Dedicated ships are not available/reasonable for cash reasons. In some cases mod BP are required for them to be useful/viable enough to shoulder the upkeep.

- Late game everything can be hyper optimized. Dedicated ships rule in that environment because cost is no longer a limiting factor.

Venture feels like it should be a no brainer early/midgame, but it isn't.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: nonomo4 on September 06, 2019, 04:15:25 PM
Having dedicated haulers and dedicated combat ships is better on both accounts, I think most of the hybrid ships are a trap.

- Early to mid game you take the best you can get even if it's sub optimal. Early to mid game I use tons of (P) Mules for reasons I outlined, hauling/fighting not great at anything but solid. General function is needed as you lack both fighting and support. Mostly because Dedicated ships are not available/reasonable for cash reasons. In some cases mod BP are required for them to be useful/viable enough to shoulder the upkeep.


Well the venture fits this perfectly. It’s a sub optimal ship that’s roll is early/mid game while you don’t have other options (lack of mods, lack of credits, no other choices available).
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: Ragebrew on September 06, 2019, 04:25:50 PM
Having dedicated haulers and dedicated combat ships is better on both accounts, I think most of the hybrid ships are a trap.

I both completely agree and completely disagree at the same time.

The stage you are at in the game greatly impacts ship choices.

- Early to mid game you take the best you can get even if it's sub optimal. Early to mid game I use tons of (P) Mules for reasons I outlined, hauling/fighting not great at anything but solid. General function is needed as you lack both fighting and support. Mostly because Dedicated ships are not available/reasonable for cash reasons. In some cases mod BP are required for them to be useful/viable enough to shoulder the upkeep.

- Late game everything can be hyper optimized. Dedicated ships rule in that environment because cost is no longer a limiting factor.

Venture feels like it should be a no brainer early/midgame, but it isn't.

Well, for me it is an obvious no brainer, since my early game is purely focused around exploration. There is fat cash to be made just exploring worlds, 1, 3, 5, 10, 30k a survey quickly adds up when you only burn 5 supply a go. Their 5 medium hardpoints give them enough firepower to drop probe cruisers with a well placed volley in a single go, allowing you to harvest those sweet, sweet gamma and beta cores. The only ship better for dedicated exploration is the Apogee, and finding those are a *** and a half. As I said, I can acquire a squadron of Ventures in a single circuit of the Core, I might be lucky to find a single Apogee.
Title: Re: Venture, why?
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 05:34:47 PM
The thing about exploration is that I can solo all the derelict fleets from probes and survey ships with a single SO hammerhead for 10 supplies so I don't need any other combat ships. The motherships probably require more, but a venture isn't really what I'm looking for in that case. If I want to fight remnants, I will definitely need good ships and not some mediocre hybrid ships. I would much rather bring shepherds and apogees as well as buffalos with the surveying equipment to bring down survey costs. Most gas giants are level 1 so I don't mind skipping them early game. Shepherds and the starting apogee can get normal sized worlds down to 5 supplies without too much trouble.