1) Replacement rate should be taken into consideration or otherwise rolled into the survivability grade and it doesn't seem like it is. (At a first glance.) For instance, the Wasp might be very fragile, but it replaces quickly enough that an F grade is somewhat misleading to its actual impact on replacement rate, if that makes sense. Same thing for E grades for the Spectre, Fang and Imp. In my tests with the Legion, it was actually fairly hard to reduce the replacement rate against Spectres. They could take 80% losses in one pass and be back to full strength in about 10-15 seconds - so not enough time to really reduce the replacement rate much.
Well, it's one of the very first crafts that I did a test with maybe I'm a little disappoint at how it goes poof in second. The reason for the initial low score is due to the vulnerability to all kinds of PD. It just doesn't cut it no matter how high the replacement rate is. The downtime is too severe to be worth it as they recuperate behind a carrier.
The survivability in question taking into account many things, mostly vaguely, including replacement rate, wing count. If it's a bomber/fighter, can come back from a bombing run get a bonus point. Mainly, the overall ability to maintain a full roster and maximize combat effectiveness, and these drones are far away from my expectation. It should be able to maintain at least 2/6 of the initial numbers at all times for it to get at least C while constantly engage in combat of equal proportion. And they are very weak against AoE fragmentation PD.
For example, The Aspect Shock. Even though it is the same cut as the rest of the variants, this thing can maintain a full roster due to its ability to neutralize all kinds of threats, therefore an S from me.
Now, I'm curious what kind of setup did you test with. I'm basically using a bare Astral against stock Astral/Executor/Eagle/Falcon. I don't even want to pair it with Legion, that thing is too crazy PD wise.
Should bombers be *mostly* successful with their attack runs if interceptors are not there to protect the ship? Or should they be situationally useful but damaging?
From my visualization of a space battle, they should be able to come back mostly intact. In my case, an Astral, at least 50% of what they deployed should be able to hit the target with no interceptor cover. But at the moment, PD can intercept almost 70-90% and whatever hit doesn't even increase flux level to 20%. The best scenario for me would be to boost the damage/HP of the torpedo really high and force the player to deploy interceptors/fighters as the only means to counter it. If the projectile speed is reduced I believe a frigate can avoid these easily.
How survivable should the baseline craft be against ship weapons? For instance, if one wing is under destroyer fire, how many seconds should the wing last?
Ship weapon you mean Non-PD? At the moment, I would say it already serves its purpose for being able to distract the main weapon lol.
Should shields be better than armor defensively? Why or why not?
It should be equal to leveling the playfield. the armor is just superior at the moment. And I expect more expensive crafts to perform slightly better just slightly.
Should at least a couple of carriers be required in the players fleet - whether to defend with interceptors or strike with bombers/gunships? Why or why not?
It should because it will be too vanilla if it doesn't, just kidding. I would say it's situational. If you saw another fleet full of carriers and you didn't deploy your own, I expect you to be beaten half dead.
What are the most useful types of craft you have used atm and why? What aspect of their design makes them better to use over other craft?
I use every type for research purposes.