i agree Odyssey and Conquest could use buffs at least as much as Paragon does, although i don't think they should be able to go toe-to-toe with a true battleship. i'd like Odyssey getting Plasma Jets to give it a clear role as the fastest capital ship, and the new flight decks can be added as needed to really make it worth using.
for Conquest, an obvious change would be to give it a decent shield. it currently has one of the worst shields in the entire game, despite supposedly being a midline ship, and without heavy armor or other powerful defensive features that could make up for it.
one simple way to make battlecruisers at least situationally worth using over battleships, without just reducing cost or making them battleships in anything but name, would be an increase in burn speed to cruiser level. so for fleets that value high campaign-layer mobility (like faction patrols that need to be able to both catch and wipe out pirates or hostile-factions raiders), paying the full cost of a capital ship despite not getting battleship-grade combat power could still be a good deal.
Are we talking fighting against a Paragon or fighting as one? I totally agree with you but I've not experienced the AI ignoring the Paragon as much as you suggest. As a player, of course it makes sense to take everything else out first, assuming the Paragon's fleet gets pulled away from it.
yeah, i was mainly talking about fighting against Paragon. it's not as big an issue when using one yourself, but even there Onslaught currently has longer range
and is much better at forcing engagements.
With officers and ITU, I would hardly call its range "short," though it is less than other ballistic capitals. If anything, its the heavy weapons, not the beams, that need a bump in range to keep other capitals from endlessly kiting it.
i think the +25% from officer/player skill will likely be reduced or even entirely removed with the skill revamp. we don't know many details yet (not does Alex, i believe) but it has been said several times in the past that balancing is mostly done without taking current skills into account, due to the inevitable revamp.
having +100% instead of ITU's +50% wouldn't be a huge difference; a third more, to be exact. and i completely agree that it's mainly assault weapons like Heavy Blasters and Autopulse Lasers that need the range buff, to be more in line with ballistic weapons, which is partly why i'm against giving beams a larger bonus.
Paragon doesn't need anymore perks over, say, Odyssey or Conquest. Personally, I wouldn't touch it at all.
Paragon does need more power/utility over Onslaught, though, and arguably even over cruisers like Dominator or Eagle. Odyssey and Conquest having their own balance problems doesn't change that, and i don't think it would be better in to instead nerf most large ships that can use long-range ballistics.
Another way to change that would be a reversed mobility feature that forces enemies into the Paragon's range. That could for example be a in-built tractor beam, or a weapon that teleports the enemy towards you when you hit.
that would be interesting, but i feel a range increase would better fit Paragon's mini-station feel. if there is ever another fancy capital in vanilla, i'm all for a more creative way of forcing engagements.
